Blog

Effective Communications – Critical reflection

Through the Effective Communications module I have undertaken in the last 13 weeks, I have been able to improve my written and verbal communication skills. The course has provided me with an opportunity to practice communication through written reports, summaries of research articles and oral presentations. The assignments have also helped me to build my confidence in writing and speaking more expressively. Resources provided in the course on how to improve report writing and presentation techniques will also help me better communicate my ideas. The last 13 weeks have helped put me on track towards continually improving my communication skills which will be useful in future assignments both in school and at the workplace.


The oral presentations for my project helped me to improve my presentation skills. The constructive feedback I received from my lecturer as well as my peers after the mock presentation helped me realise that I have lots of room for improvement with regards to my presentation skills. After receiving the feedback, I was able to revise my explanations and design better presentation slides which in turn helped me better communicate my ideas to an audience. I saw a great improvement in my final presentation, and this can be attributed to the comments from my classmates through the peer review.


The presentation showcase gave me the opportunity to see presentations from other teams from different classes. This was useful to me as I could learn from other groups which may have a different presentation style or unique ideas. The group which left a lasting impression on me was team YARJ. Their clear and concise explanations along with impactful visuals helped to clearly communicate their solution to an engineering problem. Their verbal explanation and visual aids complemented each other well and was useful in convincing the audience to buy into their idea. Learning the key aspects which made their presentation successful will help me in the future when I have to present or sell my ideas.

Reflections from Mapletree forum on 20 March 2019

The forum provided its audience greater insight into key factors which make a successful entrepreneur. The forum also addressed issues which are important to running a sustainable business. A sustainable business not only refers to the environmental impact of the business but also the social and economic factors. These 3 aspects of sustainability will determine the long-term success of the project or business.

One key point I took away from the forum was that the most important aspect of sustainability in a business is the people it affects. The human aspect of sustainability is the main driving force behind any sustainable business or project. During the forum, Ms Nancy Ling shared her experience relating to her sustainable business. In order to encourage her clients to adopt sustainable practices, she had to give her potential clients a personal stake in conserving the environment. The most important reason for adopting a sustainable mindset towards businesses is to improve the lives of the people involved. Adopting green practices to reduce negative environmental impact may not make any sense if humans have no stake in conserving the environment.

Businesses which contribute to pollution or carbon emissions will eventually have to pay the price for it. Pollution and climate change may affect humans directly or indirectly as it adversely affects human life on either a local, regional or global scale. This would affect the business economically as resources may become scarce or repairs for the damage caused need to be paid for. In an example given by Ms Nancy Ling, her clients would be encouraged to adopt green practices in fear of losing out to their competition when more people start to adopt green practices. Ultimately, humans must pay the price for living sustainably and businesses need to look towards improving the lives of humans to run a sustainable business.

Technical report final: Implementing a Closed-Loop Food Waste Recycling System in Singapore Hawker Centers

1.  Introduction

1.1  Background
Food waste is a problem faced by Singapore and countries all around the world. Food waste is defined as “the removal of food from the supply chain which is fit for consumption, or which has spoiled or expired, mainly caused by economic behavior, poor management or neglect” (FAO, 2014, p.4). As the global population increases, the global food supply would be strained to meet the rising demand. Between 2012 to 2014, 805 million people were chronically undernourished while food was wasted or lost in other areas around the world (Galanakis, 2015). While food is scarce in developing regions in the world, food is also being wasted and lost from the food chain in other places such as Singapore. According to the National Environment Agency (NEA), in 2017, food waste accounted for 10% of total waste generated in Singapore, but only 16% of the food waste was recycled (NEA, 2018). The remainder of food waste which is not recycled will be sent to incineration plants to be incinerated. This process of incinerating food waste can be harmful to the environment as it produces large amounts of carbon emissions. It is beneficial to increase the amount of food waste recycled in Singapore as it would reduce overall carbon emissions.
Regarding the issue on food waste, the main stakeholders would be the government and government agencies as well as businesses related to the food industry. The government is responsible for formulating and implementing policies which will greatly affect the actions taken to reduce food wastage. Such policies can help facilitate the adoption of new technologies for local businesses. The government can also launch campaigns to raise awareness for the management of food waste. In a survey conducted regarding this issue (see Appendix A), 32.5% of respondents felt that lack of awareness among Singaporeans is one of the main factors which limited the recycling rate of food waste at hawker centers. Furthermore, 22% of respondents responded that inadequate policies being implemented by relevant authorities is a contributing factor which limits food waste recycling in Singapore. Businesses that have a stake in this issue include local food businesses such as hawker centers, food vendors, supermarkets, wet markets and food recycling plants. These businesses are responsible for the management of food waste as it is an important factor to ensure that they have a sustainable business. Food wastage also accounts for the loss in profits businesses due to overstocking of perishables, resulting in uncooked food being thrown away.
 The issue of food waste affects all Singaporeans as the vast majority of Singaporeans contribute to food waste in Singapore. According to a study conducted by Grandhi and Singh (2016), the general public believed that food waste was not an issue since it was natural and biodegradable. Half of the respondents from the study acknowledged that they could have taken steps to avoid food waste generated from leftovers after a meal, food becoming spoilt, and throwing away blemished fruits and vegetables. It was also noted through the study that there was a lack in sorting of food waste in Singapore. This showed that there was a lack of awareness among Singaporeans about the consequences of massive amount of food waste. Hawker centers and wet markets contribute to a portion of the total food waste in Singapore, as it is a place where Singaporeans go to have their meals and thus leaving food waste if they do not finish their food. Hawker vendors and market stall owners also contribute to food wastage when the amount of food ingredients prepared exceeds the demand and is thrown away because the food is spoilt or expired. To tackle the problem of food waste in Singapore, government agencies such as the NEA must work towards ensuring food waste is handled in a sustainable manner. Food waste recovery can improve the sustainability of food systems by making full use of the valuable compounds which can be recovered from food waste.

1.2  Problem Statement
Ideally, food waste generated by local food centers should be thoroughly sorted in preparation for processing to be fully utilized in other means, instead of being disposed of.  In 2017, Singapore produced 809,800 tons of food waste, while recycling only a mere 16% of it, with the remaining being incinerated (NEA, 2018). This is mainly due to the lack of an efficient recycling system at locations (hawker centers) where a significant amount of food waste is being produced. 

1.3  Purpose Statement
 This report aims to propose to the NEA Hawker Center Division in implementing a closed-loop system to maximize the food waste utilization rate of hawker centers in Singapore by providing them with an efficient system to sort and recycle food waste generated by food vendors and customers.  2.    Proposed solution

The proposed solution to deal with the problem of food waste in hawker centers is to implement a closed loop system to maximize the food waste utilization rate of hawker centers. This closed-loop system consists of different stages: collection and sorting, treatment and utilization of end products. In the sorting stage, food waste is separated according to their valuable compounds to facilitate the treatment process. The sorted food waste will then be treated using two waste treatment methods, anaerobic digestion and composting. 

2.1  Collection and sorting
Both composting and anaerobic digestion can be implemented simultaneously to maximize the utilization of food waste in hawker centers. Using both composting and anaerobic digestion draws benefits from each method while mitigating the drawbacks. These two systems complement each other as they reduce the cost of recycling food waste as well as ensuring all types of food waste produced at the hawker center is fully utilized. Composting helps keep the cost of processing food waste low and produces compost suitable for gardening. Anaerobic digestion is able to process most forms of food waste not suitable for composting and produces methane which can be turned to other forms of energy.  

2.2  Treatment
2.2.1                 Composting
Composting is a process which involves microorganisms breaking down food waste in the presence of oxygen. “Composting has been used as a method to dispose food waste (FW) and recycle organic matter to improve soil structure and fertility” (Li, Lu, Ren & He, 2013). The product of composting can be used as fertilizer or soil conditioner. The by-products of composting are heat, water and carbon dioxide. Composting is a cheap and simple way of processing food waste. Composting would be ideal for food waste such as vegetables and fruits classified as “greens”. Other types of food waste from hawker centers suitable for composting include bones or egg shells which are left after cooking. Other compounds such as meats are not ideal as they produce a foul odor and may attract stray animals.


2.2.2                 Anaerobic digestion
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a process which involves microorganisms breaking down food waste in the absence of oxygen (Zero Waste Singapore, 2008). This process produces biogases (mainly methane) and digestate, which can be utilized to produce energy and as a compost respectively. Anaerobic digestion of food waste is able to treat a “wide range of substrates of both agricultural and industrial origin” (Pesta, 2007). This method is applicable for any liquid or solid organic waste. However, due to the complexity and additional machineries needed for this process, anaerobic digestion has a higher capital and operational cost as compared to composting, in treating food waste.  

2.3  Utilization of end products 
Through the treatment processes (composting and anaerobic digestion), food waste are being turned into bioproducts; mainly compost and methane. These bioproducts produced are usable resources that could be utilized to supplement the hawker center’s daily operational needs. This would provide an opportunity for an in-house garden to be situated at the rooftops of hawker centers. This garden would allow stall owners to grow their own ingredients, thereby reducing the stall’s dependency on external sources. Thus, the utilization of these end products creates a closed-loop system for the center, which in turn promotes self-sustainability through the reduction in reliance on external sources for its daily operations. Examples of the utilization of these end products would be the usage of compost produced at the in-house rooftop garden and recirculation of methane produced into the center’s gas pipelines.


2.2.2                 Anaerobic digestion
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a process which involves microorganisms breaking down food waste in the absence of oxygen (Zero Waste Singapore, 2008). This process produces biogases (mainly methane) and digestate, which can be utilized to produce energy and as a compost respectively. Anaerobic digestion of food waste is able to treat a “wide range of substrates of both agricultural and industrial origin” (Pesta, 2007). This method is applicable for any liquid or solid organic waste. However, due to the complexity and additional machineries needed for this process, anaerobic digestion has a higher capital and operational cost as compared to composting, in treating food waste.  

2.3  Utilization of end products 
Through the treatment processes (composting and anaerobic digestion), food waste are being turned into bioproducts; mainly compost and methane. These bioproducts produced are usable resources that could be utilized to supplement the hawker center’s daily operational needs. This would provide an opportunity for an in-house garden to be situated at the rooftops of hawker centers. This garden would allow stall owners to grow their own ingredients, thereby reducing the stall’s dependency on external sources. Thus, the utilization of these end products creates a closed-loop system for the center, which in turn promotes self-sustainability through the reduction in reliance on external sources for its daily operations. Examples of the utilization of these end products would be the usage of compost produced at the in-house rooftop garden and recirculation of methane produced into the center’s gas pipelines.

3.    Benefits
The proposed solution focuses on having a closed-loop system being implemented in the hawker center. This closed-loop system taps on food waste generated by turning them into usable resources through treatment processes. This resources produced would then be used extensively in the hawker center to meet its operational needs. It is beneficial to have such system in place as it reduces reliance on external sources and maximizes the utilization of food waste.

3.1  Reduced dependency on external resources
Operating cost of a stall in hawker center is high due to the fluctuating utilities prices. This is a significant impact to the vendors’ income as utilities cost contributes 9% to the daily operating cost (The Straits Times, 2015). Thus, having a closed-loop system in place in the hawker center is beneficial to the vendors. This system allows the food waste generated within the center to be turned into usable resources, such as biogases. These biogases produced can be recirculated into the center’s gas pipeline, which in turn reduces the utilities cost as the recirculated biogases would reduce the need for gases supplied externally (used for stoves etc.).

 
3.2  Maximized utilization of food waste
 As mentioned earlier, in Singapore, food waste accounted for 10% of total waste generated and only 16% of it is being recycled (NEA, 2018)(see Appendix B), with the remaining being incinerated. The process of incineration does not eradicate the waste; instead, it reduces the volume of it by reducing them into ashes which are dumped into landfill subsequently. This is not sustainable as according to the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) in 2019, based on the rate of waste currently being disposed, Singapore’s only landfill would be running out of space by 2035. Therefore, the ideal solution to prolong the landfill’s lifespan would be to maximize the utilization of waste instead of having them disposed of.

3.3  Inclusion of an in-house garden
Supporting the closed-loop system, there is opportunity for an in-house garden to be included at rooftops of hawker centers. Hawker centers generate up to an average of 1 ton of food waste daily. This contributes a significant amount to the overall food waste that Singapore generates. According to Yahya (2011), 1 ton of food waste will return approximately 1000 liters in reclaimed water. The reclaimed water can be used for irrigation for the in-house garden’s hydroponics system to grow local produce for use within the hawker center. Furthermore, the compost produced from the recycled food waste collected from the hawker center can be used as an enriching medium for the growing of produce in the in-house garden. 

 4.    Evaluation
4.1  Site limitations
Space constraints are a possible challenge most hawker centers would have to deal with prior to the implementation of the system. Due to the limitation of space, the installation of required treatment equipment and having an in-house garden may not be feasible for small hawker centers.  

4.2  Operational cost
The installation of an anaerobic digester on site would have a high capital cost and could potentially increase the hawker centers’ overall operational cost; which may not be favorable to the investing stakeholders. However, in ensuring the long term sustainability of their businesses, the stakeholders have to take into account that the benefits of implementing such system would eventually outweigh the capital cost, profiting in the long run. 


4.3  Inertia of hawker centers to adopt new system
As composting and anaerobic digestion are not familiar terms to stall owners and managers of hawker centers, it will take time for hawker centers to become familiar and adopt the new technology. The initial stages of implementation would be difficult as it requires a change of mindset towards how food waste is to be handled. Thus, courses must be provided to educate the stall owners and managers the proper operational procedures of the equipment.

5.    Methods/Procedure

5.1  Primary research In efforts to explore the need for food waste recycling and to identify the limitation that was limiting the recycling of food waste in hawker centers, a quantitative survey research and on-site observations were carried out. In the survey (see Appendix A), respondents were asked about their contributions to food waste at hawker centers, their opinion on the food waste recycling rate and the main factor that limits food waste recycling at hawker centers. On-site observations were conducted to enhance the accuracy of the survey responses gathered, as well as to gain further insight in how food waste at hawker centers was being handled.  


5.2  Secondary research To further complement the findings obtained through primary research, a secondary research was conducted. Research articles related to food waste, the treatment methods and the utilization of end products from treatments were used to affirm the obtained findings and also to gain new information which would aid in the development of a closed-loop system for recycling food waste at hawker centers. Statistics from local government sources are also analyzed for trends to supplement the findings. 


6.    Concluding statement
 The problem on food waste has serious social and environmental implications. Even so, a majority of the population in Singapore takes the problem lightly, continuing on the daily habits that would contribute to the generation of food waste. With the increased rate of waste generation due to the increase in population, Singapore’s one and only Semakau landfill is filling up. Thus, there is compelling need to increase the recycling rate of food waste that is being sent for incineration and dumping. The proposed closed-loop system would be the sustainable approach in tackling this problem, giving food waste a second life. Through this closed-loop system, food waste generated in hawker centers are converted into a usable bioproducts and be utilized to supplement the hawker center daily operational needs. The implementation of this system in hawker centers would be beneficial not only to the centers themselves, it would also be beneficial to Singapore’s constant pursuit of environmental sustainability.   
Therefore, since the National Environment Agency has a huge role to play in increasing the recycling rate of food waste, the implementation of the proposed closed-loop system would be a good head start to encourage hawker centers to recycle food waste; thereby keeping Singapore’s mission on environmental sustainability, on track. 

References

 Food waste recycling(2008, December 8). Zero Waste SG. Retrieved from http://www.zerowastesg.com/tag/anaerobic-digestion/
  Food Waste Management(2018, September 27). National Environment Agency. Retrieved from https://www.nea.gov.sg/our-services/waste-management/3r-programmes-and-resources/food-waste-management    
Galanakis, C. M. (2015). Food Waste Recovery – Processing Technologies and Industrial Techniques.Retrieved from https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/toc/id:kpFWRPTIT1/food-waste-recovery-processing/food-waste-recovery-processing    
Grandhi, B., Singh, J. A. (2016). What a Waste! A Study of Food Wastage Behavior in Singapore. Journal of Food Products Marketing26(4), 471-485. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2014.885863    
Half of food thrown away by Singapore households can be avoided: NEA study(2017, December 4).Channel News Asia. Retrieved from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/half-of-food-thrown-away-by-singapore-households-can-be-avoided-9464560    
Li, Z., Lu, H., Ren, L., & He, L. (2013). Experimental and modeling approaches for food waste composting: A review. Chemosphere93(7), 1247-1257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.06.064    
Pesta, G. (2007). Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Residues and Wastes. Utilization of By-Products and Treatment of Waste in the Food Industry, 53-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35766-9_4    
Siau, M. (2014, April 28). Recycling of foodwaste yet to catch on in Singapore. Today Online. Retrieved from https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/recycling-foodwaste-yet-catch-singapore    
Tan, A. (2015, March 11). Singapore Budget 2015: 10 more hawker centres to be built by 2027. The Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-budget-2015-10-more-hawker-centres-to-be-built-by-2027
Yahya, Y. (2011, December 28). Turning food waste into water. Eco-Business. Retrieved fromhttps://www.eco-business.com/news/turning-food-waste-into-water/

Technical report draft: Improving efficiency of food waste management in hawker centers

1.       Introduction

1.1       Background

Food waste is a problem faced by Singapore and countries all around the world. Food waste is defined as “the removal of food from the supply chain which is fit for consumption, or which has spoiled or expired, mainly caused by economic behavior, poor management or neglect” (FAO, 2014, P.4). As the global population increases, the global food supply would be strained to meet the rising demand. Between 2012 to 2014, 805 million people were chronically undernourished while food was wasted or lost in other areas around the world (Galanakis, 2015). While food is scarce in developing regions in the world, food is also being wasted and lost from the food chain in other places such as Singapore.

According to the National Environment Agency (NEA), in 2017, food waste accounted for 10% of total waste generated in Singapore, but only 16% of the food waste was recycled (NEA, 2018). The remainder of food waste which is not recycled will be sent to incineration plants to be incinerated. This process of incinerating food waste can be harmful to the environment as it produces large amounts of carbon emissions. It is beneficial to increase the amount of food waste recycled in Singapore as it would reduce overall carbon emissions.

Regarding the issue on food waste, the main stakeholders would be the government and government agencies as well as businesses related to the food industry. The government is responsible for formulating and implementing policies which will greatly affect the actions taken to reduce food wastage. Such policies can help facilitate the adoption of new technologies for local businesses. The government can also launch campaigns to raise awareness for the management of food waste. Businesses that have a stake in this issue include local food businesses such as hawker centers, food vendors, supermarkets, wet markets and food recycling plants. These businesses are responsible for the management of food waste as it is an important factor to ensure that they have a sustainable business. Food wastage also accounts for the loss in profits businesses due to overstocking of perishables, resulting in uncooked food being thrown away.

The issue of food waste affects all Singaporeans as the vast majority of Singaporeans contribute to food waste in Singapore. According to a study conducted by Grandhi and Singh (2016), the general public thinks that food waste was not an issue since it was natural and biodegradable. Half of the respondents from the study acknowledged that they could have taken steps to avoid food waste generated from leftovers after a meal, food becoming spoilt, and throwing away blemished fruits and vegetables. It was also noted through the study that there was a lack in sorting of food waste in Singapore. This showed that there was a lack of awareness among Singaporeans about the consequences of massive amounts of food waste.

Hawker centers and wet markets contribute to a portion of the total food waste in Singapore; as it is a place where Singaporeans go to have their meals and thus leaving food waste if they do not finish their food. Hawker vendors and market stall owners also contribute to food wastage when the amount of food ingredients prepared exceeds the demand and is thrown away because the food is spoilt or expired.

To tackle the problem of food waste in Singapore, Singaporeans must work towards ensuring food waste is handled in a sustainable manner. Food waste recovery can improve the sustainability of food systems by making full use of the valuable compounds which can be recovered from food waste.

1.2       Problem Statement

Ideally, food waste generated by local food centers should be thoroughly sorted in preparation for processing to be fully utilized in other means, instead of being disposed of.  In 2017, Singapore produced 809,800 tonnes of food waste, while recycling only a mere 16% of it, with the remaining being incinerated (NEA, 2018). This is mainly due to the lack of an efficient recycling system at locations (hawker centres) where a significant amount of food waste is being produced.

1.3       Purpose Statement

This report aims to propose to the NEA Hawker Centre Division in implementing a closed-loop system to maximize the food waste utilization rate of hawker centres by providing an efficient system to sort and utilize food waste generated by food vendors and customers.

2.       Proposed solution

The proposed solution to deal with the problem of food waste in hawker centres is to provide a closed loop system to maximize the food waste utilization rate of hawker centres. This closed loop system consists of different stages; collection and sorting, treatment and utilization of end products. In the sorting stage, food waste is separated according to their valuable compounds to facilitate the treatment process. The sorted food waste will then be treated using two waste treatment methods, anaerobic digestion and composting.

2.1       Collection and sorting

Both composting and anaerobic digestion can be implemented simultaneously to maximize the utilization of food waste in hawker centers. Using both composting and anaerobic digestion draws benefits from each method while mitigating the drawbacks. These two systems complement each other as it reduces the cost of recycling food waste as well as ensuring all types of food waste produced at the hawker center is fully utilized. Composting helps keep the cost of processing food waste low and produces compost suitable for gardening. Anaerobic digestion is able to process most forms of food waste not suitable for composting and produces methane which can be turned to other forms of energy.

2.2       Treatment

a.         Composting

Composting is a process which involves microorganisms breaking down food waste in the presence of oxygen. “Composting has been used as a method to dispose food waste (FW) and recycle organic matter to improve soil structure and fertility.” (Li, Lu, Ren & He, 2013). The product of composting can be used as fertilizer or soil conditioner. The by-products of composting are heat, water and carbon dioxide. Composting is a cheap and simple way of processing food waste. Composting would be ideal for food waste such as vegetables and fruits classified as “greens”. Other compounds such as meats are not ideal as they produce a foul odor and may attract stray animals.

b.         Anaerobic digestion

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a process which involves microorganisms breaking down food waste in the absence of oxygen. (Zero Waste Singapore, 2008). This process produces biogases (mainly methane) and digestate, which can be utilized to produce energy and as a compost respectively. Anaerobic digestion of food waste is able to treat a “wide range of substrates of both agricultural and industrial origin” (Pesta, 2007). This method is applicable for any liquid or solid organic waste. However, due to the complexity and additional machineries needed for this process, anaerobic digestion has a higher capital and operational cost as compared to composting, in treating food waste.

2.3       Utilization of end products

Through the treatment processes (composting and anaerobic digestion), food waste are being turned into bioproducts; mainly compost and methane. These bioproducts produced are usable resources that could be utilized to supplement the hawker center’s daily operational needs. Utilization of these end products creates a closed loop system for the center, which in turn promotes self-sustainability through the reduction in reliance on external sources for its daily operations. Examples of the utilization of these end products would be the usage of compost produced at the in-house rooftop garden and recirculation of methane produced into the center’s gas pipelines.

3.       Benefits

The proposed solution focuses on having a closed-loop system being implemented in the hawker centre. This closed-loop system taps on food waste generated by turning them into usable resources through treatment processes. This resources produced would then be used extensively in the hawker centre to meet its operational needs. It is beneficial to have such system in place as it reduces dependency on external resources, maximizes the utilization of food waste and

3.1       Reduced dependency on external resources

Operating cost of a stall in hawker center is high due to the fluctuating utilities prices. This is a significant impact to the vendors’ income as utilities cost contributes 9% to the daily operating cost (The Straits Times, 2015). Thus, having a closed-loop system in place in the hawker center is beneficial to the vendors. This system allows the food waste generated within the center to be turned into usable resources, such as biogases. These biogases produced can be recirculated into the center’s gas pipeline, which in turn reduces the utilities cost as the recirculated biogases would reduce the need for gases supplied externally (used for stoves etc.).

3.2       Maximized utilization of food waste

As mentioned earlier on, in Singapore, food waste accounted for 10% of total waste generated and only 16% of it is being recycled (NEA, 2018), with the remaining being incinerated. The process of incineration does not eradicate the waste; instead, it reduces the volume of it by reducing them into ashes which are dumped into landfill subsequently. This is not sustainable as according to the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) in 2019, based on the rate of waste currently being disposed, Singapore’s only landfill would be running out of space by 2035. Therefore, the only solution to prolong the landfill’s lifespan would be to maximize the utilization of waste instead of having them disposed of.

3.3       Hawker center localised garden for growing of small produce

Hawker centers generate up to an average of 1 ton of food waste daily. This contributes a significant amount to the overall food waste that Singapore generates. According to Yahya (2011), 1 ton of food waste will return approximately 1000 litres in reclaimed water.  The reclaimed water can be used for irrigation for a hydroponics system to grow local produce for use within the hawker centre that the farm is located in.

Furthermore, the compost produced from the recycled food waste collected from the hawker centre can be used to enrich the growing medium for the produce grown in the hawker centre garden for use by the vendors for their own use in their stalls.

As for the biogas produced from anaerobic digestion, it can be used to fuel the generators the systems that run the hydroponics farm like water pumps for irrigation and UV lamps to keep the produce in optimum lighting levels throughout the day.

4.       Evaluation

4.1       Site limitations

One possible challenge which the proposed treatment system may face would be the limited space which most hawker centers have. Installing equipment to treat the food waste may not be feasible for small hawker centers as there would be no space for the equipment. The proposed garden would also be limited to the space around the hawker center.

4.2       Operational cost

Installing an anaerobic digester on site would be costly and could potentially cost the hawker center more money to maintain its operation. From the point of view of stakeholders who invest money in installing an anaerobic digester on site, the benefits of the treatment system must outweigh the cost of operation. Stakeholders must weigh the benefits of recycling food waste against the cost of such a system to ensure their business is sustainable and that the system will eventually cover the capital cost.

4.3       Inertia of hawker centers to adopt new system

As composting and anaerobic digestion are not familiar terms to hawker stall owners and managers of hawker centers, it may be difficult to implement a new system as it will take time for hawker centers to familiarize and adopt new technology. Hawker vendors may also not be well trained to operate equipment to treat food waste. The initial stage of implementation would be difficult as it requires a change of mindset towards handling food waste as opposed to the traditional method of dumping food waste in a bin.

Basic lesson on using those machinery can be taught free to all hawker stall owners, at the same time explaining to them the benefits on adopting these new technology.

5.       Methods/Procedure

5.1       Primary research

A survey was conducted to identify the problem with regards to food waste in hawker centers. Respondents were asked about their contributions to food waste at hawker centers and their opinion on the rate of recycling food waste at hawker centers as well as the main factor which limits food waste recycling. The survey was conducted to justify the need for food waste recycling at hawker centers as well as identify the current problem which limits the food waste recycling rate. Interviews with hawker stall owners were also carried out to gain further insight into how food waste at hawker centers is being handled.

5.2       Secondary research

Secondary research was conducted by reading research articles related to food waste treatment methods and utilization of products from recycling food waste, which will help in developing a closed-loop system for recycling food waste at hawker centers. Local statistics on the rate of food waste recycling were taken from the NEA website.

6.       Concluding statement

Food waste has serious social and environmental implication but many of us don’t think twice about it. Furthermore, with the increase of population, landfills running out of space and human living longer. There is compelling need to increase the recycling rate then letting food waste be send for incineration. Our proposed on closed loop system could be a sustainable approach by the end-product could be a usable resources that could be utilized to supplement the hawkers center daily operational needs.

The benefits of implementing a closed-loop system for food waste in hawker centers would be limited by the willingness of hawker centers to adopt such a system. The NEA could play a big role in encouraging hawker centers to recycle food waste. To ensure this system is well received by hawker centers around Singapore, some incentives could be given to hawker centers which are willing to adopt the system. In a survey conducted regarding this issue, 32.5% of respondents said that lack of awareness among Singaporeans is one of the main factors which limited the recycling rate of food waste at hawker centers. Furthermore, 22% of respondents said that inadequate policies being implemented by relevant authorities is a contributing factor which limits food waste recycling in Singapore. To ensure successful implementation, it is vital that NEA takes initiative in campaigning for food waste recycling and educating Singaporeans on the importance of recycling food waste.

A pilot project is recommended to test the feasibility of implementing the recycling system in hawker centers around Singapore. The pilot project will involve upgrading a hawker center by installing food waste treatment equipment as well as planting a garden in close proximity to the hawker center. The project should be monitored and if successful can be adapted and implemented in hawker centers all around Singapore.

Technical report draft 1: Improving efficiency of food waste management in hawker centers

Background

Food waste is a problem faced by Singapore and countries all around the world. Food waste is defined as “the removal of food from the supply chain which is fit for consumption, or which has spoiled or expired, mainly caused by economic behavior, poor management or neglect” (FAO, 2014, 4). As the global population increases, the global food supply will be strained to meet the rising demand. Between 2012 to 2014, 805 million people were chronically undernourished while food is wasted or loss in other areas around the world (Galanakis. M, 2015). While food is scarce in developing regions in the world, food is also being wasted and loss from the food chain in other places such as Singapore.

According to the National Environment Agency (NEA, n.d.), in 2017, food waste accounts  for 10% of total waste generated in Singapore, however only 16% of the food waste is recycled . The remainder of food waste which is not recycled will be sent to incineration plants to be incinerated. This process of incinerating food waste can be harmful to the environment as it produces large amounts of carbon emissions. It is beneficial to increase the amount of food waste recycled in Singapore as it would reduce overall carbon emissions.

Regarding the issue of food waste, the main stakeholders would be the government and government agencies as well as businesses related to the food industry. The government is responsible for formulating and implementing policies which will greatly affect the actions taken to reduce food wastage. Such policies can help facilitate the adoption of new technologies for local businesses. The government can also launch campaigns to raise awareness for the management of food waste. Businesses that have a stake in this issue include local food businesses such as hawker centers, food vendors, supermarkets, wet markets and food recycling plants. These businesses are responsible for the management of food waste as it is a important factor to ensuring they have a sustainable business. Food wastage also accounts for the loss in revenue for businesses as food is over ordered or over produced.

The issue of food waste affects all Singaporeans as the vast majority of singaporeans contribute to food waste in Singapore. According to “What a Waste! A Study of Food Wastage Behavior in Singapore” (Grandhi B.  & Singh J. A., 2016), it was said that the general public thinks that food waste is not an issue since it is natural and biodegradable. This shows that there is a lack of awareness in Singaporeans about the consequences of massive amounts of food waste. It was also noted that there is a lack of sorting of food waste in singapore. Half of them acknowledged that they could have taken steps to avoid food waste generated from leftovers after a meal, food expiring or becoming spoilt, and throwing away blemished fruits and vegetables.

Hawker centers and wet markets contribute to a portion of the total food waste in Singapore as it is a place where Singaporeans go to have their meals and thus leaving food waste if they do not finish their food. Hawker vendors and market stall owners also contribute to food wastage when the amount of food ingredients prepared exceeds the demand and is thrown away because the food is spoilt or expired.

To tackle the problem of food waste in Singapore, Singaporeans must work towards ensuring food waste is handled in a sustainable manner. Food waste recovery can improve the sustainability of food systems by making full use of the valuable compounds which can be recovered from food waste.

Problem statement:

Ideally, food waste generated by local food centers should be thoroughly sorted in preparation for processing to be fully utilized in other means, instead of being disposed of. In 2017, Singapore produced 809,800 tonnes of food waste, while recycling only a mere 16% of it, with the remaining being incinerated. This is mainly due to the lack of an efficient recycling system at locations (food centers) where a significant amount of food waste are being produced.

Purpose statement:

This report aims to tackle the problem of food waste from food centers (hawkers & wet markets) in Singapore by providing a convenient system to sort and utilize food waste generated by food vendors and customers.

Annotated summary

Galanakis, M (2015). Food Waste Recovery – Processing Technologies and Industrial Techniques. Elsevier. Retrieved from https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/toc/id:kpFWRPTIT1/food-waste-recovery-processing/food-waste-recovery-processing

This article gives insight into the challenge of reducing food waste globally. While the global demand of food is growing, it is a challenge to ensure that there is a sustainable supply to meet the future demand (Galanakis. M, 2015). The article provides global statistics on the impact of food and nutrition security due to the quantity of food lost and wasted. Food waste recovery can improve the sustainability of food systems by making full use of the valuable compounds which can be recovered from food waste. Food waste can be utilized in a way where the waste is repurposed so that the leftover compounds will reap potential benefits and food waste is reduced. The article elaborates on the types of food waste and the methods of recovering food waste. There are 2 main groups of food waste and 7 subcategories within the groups. One main group is of plant origin and this includes cereals, roots and tubers, oil crops and pulses as well as fruits and vegetables. The other main group is of animal origin and this includes meat products, fish and seafood as well as dairy products. There are 5 main treatments of food waste; valorisation as animal feed, landfilling, biofuel conversion, composting and valorisation to recover food waste. The article covers the different technologies used to recover food waste and addresses the emerging techniques which were being developed. Food waste can be significantly reduced by utilizing conventional and emerging technologies which aims to maximise the potential of compounds in food waste, thus making the food system more sustainable.

Summary_reader response Draft 3

In the article “Natural Engineering offers solutions against future flooding”, it was stated that there are solutions inspired by nature which can prevent flooding in areas affected due to increased rate of water flow upstream (Newcastle University, 2014). One example of this solution implemented in Belford, which is a small town in the UK, shows how this natural flood management scheme can be applied in other areas around the UK where flooding is prevalent. Newcastle University (2014) demonstrated that the scheme is an effective method to prevent flooding in low lying areas by altering the natural flow pathways and reducing the runoff from the land. Managing the downstream flow gives people more time to prepare in the event a flood occurs. This also reduces pollution by preventing phosphorus and nitrates from being washed off the land. The scheme uses soft engineering solutions to prevent flooding by storing water, increasing soil infiltration, increasing resistance to water flow or redirecting water. Implementation of the natural flood management systems can be significantly cheaper as compared to conventional flood management systems.

The article published on Science Daily provides information regarding the implementation as well as benefits of using natural flood management systems, however it fails to address the negative impacts and challenges such a system will face when being implemented.

Firstly, loss of biological diversity and ecological function may be a possible consequence of altering natural flow pathways. Altering natural flow pathways may cause disruption to the existing ecosystem as changing the flow of water or introducing new features to store water will affect the natural balance of the water body. Changing the “area, frequency and duration of flooding of floodplains and terminal wetlands” will reduce the habitat of species which depend on these water bodies (Office of Environment and Heritage, n.d.) This can also lead to increased habitat of invasive species. Ultimately, altering any aspect of a natural flow pathway could tip the balance of the delicate ecosystem around rivers and floodplains which could adversely affect the environment and community.

Secondly, gaining the support from the local community may pose a challenge to the successful implementation of the natural flood management system. According to the Journal of Flood Risk Management, a crucial factor for those who seek to promote natural flood management must consider is communicating with land managers and the wider public (Waylen, Holstead, Colley, Hopkins, 2017). Existing methods of flood prevention may hinder the adoption of new methods. With existing methods to deal with flooding, people may be less convinced to adopt a different approach. This makes the implementation of natural flood management less attractive to communities as it comes with uncertainties that can be dissolved by familiar methods. One uncertainty that may come with implementing natural flood management systems can be the potential damage to the local ecosystem and biodiversity. Without strong support and understanding from local communities and land-managers, introducing natural flood management systems will be challenging.

In my opinion, the study conducted in Belford is not representative of other natural flood management systems implemented in other areas around the world as the impact on the eco-system may differ in different places. According to the article “Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers, streams, floodplains & wetlands – key threatening process listing”, altering natural pathways can adversely affect the eco-system in New South Wales, Australia, which could be very different in terms of geography and bio-diversity as compared to Belford, Northumberland (Office of Environment and Heritage, n.d.).

In conclusion, introducing natural flood management systems can bring social, economic and environmental benefits to a community that is supportive of it. However, the success of such a system is highly dependent on the geography, biodiversity and environmental conditions which is unique in different areas. It also requires good communication between those who seek to implement the system and the people this system would affect.

References:

Newcastle University. (2014). ‘Natural’ engineering offers solution against future flooding. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140128094531.htm

Office of Environment and Heritage. (n.d.). Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers, streams, floodplains & wetlands – key threatening process listing. Retrieved from https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspecies/AlterationNaturalFlowKTPListing.htm

Waylen, K.A., Holstead, K.L., Colley, K., & Hopkins, J (2017). Challenges to enabling and implementing Natural Flood Management in Scotland. Journal of Flood Risk Management. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jfr3.12301

Summary_reader response Draft 2

In the article “Natural Engineering offers solutions against future flooding”, it was stated that there are solutions inspired by nature which can prevent flooding in areas affected due to increased rate of water flow upstream (Newcastle University, 2014). One example of this solution implemented in Belford shows how this natural flood management scheme can be applied in other areas around the UK where flooding is prevalent. The scheme is an effective method to prevent flooding in low lying areas by altering the natural flow pathways and reducing the runoff from the land. Managing the downstream flow gives people more time to prepare in the event a flood occurs. This also reduces pollution by preventing phosphorus and nitrates from being washed off the land. The scheme uses soft engineering solutions to prevent flooding by storing water, increasing soil infiltration, increasing resistance to water flow or redirecting water. Implementation of the natural flood management systems can be significantly cheaper as compared to conventional flood management systems.

The article published on Science Daily provides information regarding the implementation as well as benefits of using natural flood management systems, however it fails to address the negative impacts and challenges such a system will face when implementing natural flood management systems.

Firstly, loss of biological diversity and ecological function may be a possible consequence of altering natural flow pathways. Altering natural flow pathways may cause disruption to the existing ecosystem as changing the flow of water or introducing new features to store water will affect the natural balance of the water body. Changing the “area, frequency and duration of flooding of floodplains and terminal wetlands” will reduce the habitat of species which depend on these water bodies. This can also lead to increased habitat of invasive species. Ultimately, altering any aspect of a natural flow pathway could tip the balance of the delicate ecosystem around rivers and floodplains which could adversely affect the environment and community.

Secondly, gaining the support from the local community may pose a challenge to the successful implementation of the natural flood management system. A crucial factor for those who seek to promote natural flood management must consider is communicating with land managers and the wider public (K. Waylen, K. Holstead, K. Colley, J. Hopkins, 2017). Existing methods of flood prevention may hinder the adoption of new methods. With existing methods to deal with flooding, people may be less convinced to adopt a different approach. This makes the implementation of natural flood management less attractive to communities as it comes with uncertainties that can be dissolved by familiar methods. One uncertainty that may come with implementing natural flood management systems can be the potential damage to the local ecosystem and biodiversity as mentioned earlier. Without strong support and understanding from local communities and land-managers, introducing natural flood management systems will be challenging.

In my opinion, the study conducted in Belford is not representative of other natural flood management systems implemented in other areas around the world as the impact on the eco-system may differ in different places. According to the article “Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers, streams, floodplains & wetlands – key threatening process listing”, it was demonstrated that altering natural pathways can adversely affect the eco-system in New South Wales, Australia, which could be very different in terms of geography and bio-diversity as compared to Belford, Northumberland (Office of Environment and Heritage, n.d.).

In conclusion, introducing natural flood management systems can bring social, economic and environmental benefits to a community that is supportive of it. However, the success of such a system is highly dependent on the geography, biodiversity and environmental conditions which is unique in different areas. It also requires good communication between those who seek to implement the system and the people this system would affect.

Retrieved from:

Newcastle University. (2014, January 28). ‘Natural’ engineering offers solution against future flooding. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 31, 2019 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140128094531.htm

Office of Environment and Heritage. (n.d.). Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers, streams, floodplains & wetlands – key threatening process listing. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspecies/AlterationNaturalFlowKTPListing.htm

K. Waylen, K. Holstead, K. Colley, & J. Hopkins (2017). Challenges to enabling and implementing Natural Flood Management in Scotland. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jfr3.12301

Summary_reader response Draft 1

In the article “Natural Engineering offers solutions against future flooding”, it was stated that there are solutions inspired by nature which can prevent flooding in areas affected due to increased rate of water flow upstream (Newcastle University, 2014). One example of this solution implemented in Belford shows how this natural flood management scheme can be applied in other areas around the UK where flooding is prevalent. The scheme is an effective method to prevent flooding in low lying areas by altering the natural flow pathways and reducing the runoff from the land. Managing the downstream flow gives people more time to prepare in the event a flood occurs. This also reduces pollution by preventing phosphorus and nitrates from being washed off the land. The scheme uses soft engineering solutions to prevent flooding by storing water, increasing soil infiltration, increasing resistance to water flow or redirecting water. Implementation of the natural flood management systems can be significantly cheaper as compared to conventional flood management systems.

The article published on Science Daily provides information regarding the implementation as well as benefits of using natural flood management systems, however it fails to address the negative impacts and trade-offs such a system will have when altering the natural flow pathways.

Firstly, loss of biological diversity and ecological function may be a possible consequence of altering natural flow pathways. Altering natural flow pathways may cause disruption to the existing eco-system as changing the flow of water or introducing new features to store water will affect the natural balance of the water body. Changing the “area, frequency and duration of flooding of floodplains and terminal wetlands” will reduce the habitat of species which depend on these water bodies. This can also lead to increased habitat of invasive species.

The study conducted in Belford is not representative of other natural flood management systems implemented in other areas around the world as the impact on the eco-system may differ in different places. According to the article “Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers, streams, floodplains & wetlands – key threatening process listing”, it was demonstrated that altering natural pathways can adversely affect the eco-system in New South Wales, Australia, which could be very different in terms of geography and bio-diversity as compare to Belford, Northumberland.

Retrieved from:

Newcastle University. (2014, January 28). ‘Natural’ engineering offers solution against future flooding. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 31, 2019 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140128094531.htm

Office of Environment and Heritage. (n.d.). Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers, streams, floodplains & wetlands – key threatening process listing. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspecies/AlterationNaturalFlowKTPListing.htm

K. Waylen, K. Holstead, K. Colley, & J. Hopkins (2017). Challenges to enabling and implementing Natural Flood Management in Scotland. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jfr3.12301

Summary draft 2

In the article “Natural Engineering offers solutions against future flooding”, it was stated that there are solutions inspired by nature which can prevent flooding in areas affected due to increased rate of water flow upstream (Newcastle University, 2014). One example of this solution implemented in Belford shows how this natural flood management scheme can be applied in other areas around the UK where flooding is prevalent. The scheme is an effective method to prevent flooding in low lying areas by altering the natural flow pathways and reducing the runoff from the land. Managing the downstream flow gives people more time to prepare in the event a flood occurs. This also reduces pollution by preventing phosphorus and nitrates from being washed off the land. The scheme uses soft engineering solutions to prevent flooding by storing water, increasing soil infiltration, increasing resistance to water flow or redirecting water. Implementation of the natural flood management systems can be significantly cheaper as compared to conventional flood management systems.

Thesis:
The article published on Science Daily provides information regarding the implementation as well as benefits of using natural flood management systems, however it fails to address the negative impacts and trade-offs such a system will have when altering the natural flow pathways.

Supporting Ideas:
Loss of biological diversity and ecological function

  • Altering natural flow pathways may cause disruption to the existing eco-system.
  • “Reduction of habitat due to change in area, frequency and duration of flooding of floodplains and terminal wetlands.”
  • Increased habitat for invasive species

The study conducted in Belford is not representative of other natural flood management systems implemented in other areas around the world as the impact on the eco-system may differ in different places. According to the article “Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers, streams, floodplains & wetlands – key threatening process listing”, it was demonstrated that altering natural pathways can adversely affect the eco-system in New South Wales, Australia, which could be very different in terms of geography and bio-diversity as compare to Belford, Northumberland.

Newcastle University. (2014, January 28). ‘Natural’ engineering offers solution against future flooding. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 31, 2019 from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140128094531.htm

Office of Environment and Heritage. (n.d.). Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers, streams, floodplains & wetlands – key threatening process listing. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspecies/AlterationNaturalFlowKTPListing.htm

K. Waylen, K. Holstead, K. Colley, & J. Hopkins (2017). Challenges to enabling and implementing Natural Flood Management in Scotland. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jfr3.12301