Towards Community Monitoring of Rivers in Malaysia

Chris Funtera

Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree

Bachelor of Environmental Science (Honours)

School of Geography and Environmental Science

Monash University

ii

Abstract

Resource shortfalls and a lack of political willingness in developing regions can

restrict efforts to conduct appropriate environmental monitoring and evaluation required to

form the basis of effective management and decision-making. Community monitoring

provides a potential pathway to involve the public in management of natural areas, whilst

also increasing environmental awareness and fostering a sense of ownership.

In Malaysia, the availability of water has become an important issue in recent

years. Population growth, urbanization and industrialization are imposing rapidly

increasing demands and pressure on water resources. Surface water in the form of streams

and rivers contributes 98% of Malaysia‟s water supply, and increasing organic and

inorganic water pollution threatens future water supply and Malaysia‟s plans for further

development. The lack of education and awareness of the general public about water

resources is a key factor that has led to the state of Malaysia‟s overall water quality.

Therefore, community monitoring may provide a useful tool in rehabilitating and

managing Malaysia‟s degraded waterways.

The potential of community monitoring was investigated by implementing a

biological monitoring program in a Malaysian high school and comparing the results with

professional assessments, in order to assess issues with data accuracy and reliability. In

addition, an established community monitoring program was analysed and program

managers consulted and interviewed on their views and experiences. Results show that

community monitoring can provide crucial information on river health, educational

opportunities for schools and the wider community and an opportunity for communities to

become involved in natural resource management. However, if community collected data

is to be used to inform management and decision-making, volunteer protocols need to be

reinforced with standard data validation techniques.

Keywords: Volunteer monitoring, macroinvertebrate monitoring, biological monitoring,

Malaysia Rivers, Malaysia Water Resources, Malaysia‟s Water Vision

iii

Acknowledgments

Acknowledging and thanking those who have helped me to undertake this project

is more difficult than I thought. I hope I have shown gratitude to all those who have

assisted me, but here I have a chance to recognize you more formally.

I am extremely grateful to Dr Catherine Yule for giving me the opportunity to work on

this project which has been an incredible experience for me. Thank you for all your

guidance, encouragement and making yourself available even when time was limited.

I had a wonderful time working with Kenny Peavy, Mark Walsh and all of the kids from

Grade 7 at the International School of Kuala Lumpur. Thank you for all of your

enthusiasm and your contribution to this project.

Thank you to Shafinaz Shahabudin, Regina Cheah and Dr Kalithasan Kailasam and

everyone from the Global Environment Centre for your great work and allowing me to

include it in this project.

Thank you to Jing Khor Tien and Meaghan Raymond for your contribution to this project

and help in the field.

To all the students in the Monash Malaysia science laboratories, thank you for your

generous spirit with which you welcomed me and assisted me with my project. I

especially would like to thank everyone who accompanied me on field trips.

To all the wonderful people I met during my time in Malaysia who made it such an

enriching experience. Terima Kasih.

Finally, I would like to thank the enduring support of all my friends and family who have

read my drafts, made me endless cups of coffee and provided a much needed distraction

when needed. Thank you.

Cover Photo: Kanching Falls, supplied by Tan Kian Yong

iv

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

This thesis contains no material which has previously been submitted as a

requirement for the award of a degree or diploma within this, or any other institution. This

thesis is entirely my own work. It contains no material which has been previously written

or published by another person, except where this is referenced within the text.

I understand that the work submitted may be reproduced and/or communicated by the

University or a third party authorized by the University for the purpose of detecting

plagiarism.

Date:

………………………........................

Signed:

……………………………........................

Chris Funtera

v

Table of Contents

Abstract ii

Acknowledgements iii

Declaration iv

Table of Contents v

List of Tables viii

List of Figures ix

List of Abbreviation of Terms xi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Objectives 2

Thesis Outline 3

Research Design 4

Chapter 2: Rivers and Water Resources in Malaysia 6

Introduction 6

Water Resources in Malaysia 6

Rivers in Malaysia 9

Malaysia‟s Water Vision 14

Conclusion 17

Chapter 3: Community Monitoring 18

Introduction 18

Community Involvement in Environmental Management 18

Community Monitoring 19

Benefits of Community Monitoring 20

Limitations of Community Monitoring 23

Community Monitoring and the Malaysian Water Vision 24

Conclusion

25

vi

Chapter 4: Implementation of a Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Program 26

Introduction 26

Biological Monitoring 26

Biological Monitoring in Malaysia 27

Monitoring Methods 28

Volunteer Monitoring 32

Materials and Methods 36

Study Site 36

Professional Sampling Protocol 39

School Sampling Protocol 40

Participant Questionnaire 41

Data Analysis 42

Results 45

Environmental Parameters 45

Invertebrate Monitoring 46

Biological Metrics 47

Student Awareness and Knowledge 54

Discussion 56

Professional Monitoring 56

Comparing School and Professional Assessments 57

Sources of Inaccuracy 58

Shortfalls of Chemical Monitoring 60

Participant Awareness and Knowledge 60

Modifications to Improve Monitoring Program 61

Conclusion 62

vii

Chapter 5: Community Management and Monitoring of Kelana Jaya Lakes 63

Introduction 63

Kelana Jaya Lake 63

Pollution Problems 64

Management 65

Project 65

Planning and Design 65

Community Monitoring and Evaluation 67

Achievements 69

Challenges and Lessons Learned 70

Conclusion 73

Chapter 6: Conclusions 74

Recommendations 76

Study Limitations 76

References 77

Appendix I – Student Questionnaire 84

Appendix II – Kelana Jaya Lake Report Card 85

Appendix III – Explanatory Statement 86

Appendix IV – Consent Form 87

viii

List of tables

Table Title Page

Table 2.1 Water Resources in Malaysia.

6

Table 4.1 Description of Sampling Sites.

38

Table 4.2 Environmental parameters measured at each study site.

39

Table 4.3 Biological metrics used to compare professional and school

samples.

43

Table 4.4 Classification of invertebrates based on pollution sensitivity.

44

Table 4.5 Chemical and physical characteristics of selected sites along

Sungai Ampang.

45

Table 4.6 Summary of invertebrate monitoring results.

46

Table 4.7 Variation of invertebrate communities between sites in

professional monitoring.

47

ix

List of Figures

Figure Title Page

Figure 2.1 River basins water quality trend 1997 – 2007

13

Figure 4.1 Map of Malaysia

37

Figure 4.2 Map of Taman TAR

37

Figure 4.3 A – Mean species richness per 20cm2 of professional

monitoring (± 1 SE, n = 10). B – Total taxa richness of

school monitoring per site.

48

Figure 4.4 A – Mean EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera)

abundance per 20cm2 area of professional monitoring (± 1

SE, n = 10). B – Total EPT abundance per site of school

monitoring.

49

Figure 4.5 A – Mean degree of dominance (proportion of three most

abundant taxa species/ 20cm2) of professional monitoring.

B – Degree of dominance of school monitoring.

50

Figure 4.6 A – Mean proportion of tolerant tax per 20cm2

area of

professional monitoring. B – Proportion of tolerant taxa per

site of school monitoring.

51

Figure 4.7 A – Mean becks biotic index score per 20cm2 of

professional monitoring. B – Becks biotic index score per

site of school monitoring.

52

x

Figure 4.8 Distribution of invertebrate pollution classes of A –

professional monitoring and B – school monitoring.

53

Figure 4.9 School student‟s awareness of river issues before the

monitoring program. B - awareness after completing the

monitoring program.

54

Figure 4.10 A – School student‟s knowledge of rivers and river health

before the monitoring program. B -awareness after

completing the monitoring program.

55

Figure 5.1 Civic science approach to community engagement. 70

xi

List of Abbreviations

FoKJ Friends of Kelana Jaya Lake Park

% Percentage

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

BCM Billion Cubic Meters

cm centimetre

Df Degree of Freedom

DID Malaysian Department of Irrigation and Drainage

E East

EPT Invertebrate orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera

EPU Economic Planning Unit

GEC Global Environment Centre

GEF Global Environment Facility

IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management

LA21 Local Agenda 21

m metre

MCM Million Cubic Meters

MPPJ Petaling Jaya Municipal Council

MWP Malaysian Water Partnership

N North

NWRC National Water Resources Council

ppm parts per million

SE Standard Error

Sg. Sungai (river)

α Alpha

F F-test value

n Number of replicates

P probability

1

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Water has played a significant role in Malaysia‟s development process, providing

the country with sufficient supply to cover all needs. The situation is however changing,

as the country continues to develop and the population continues to increase, the pressure

on the water resources increases with great impact on the quality and quantity of the water.

Rapid industrial and infrastructural development has contributed to increased organic and

inorganic pollution of Malaysia‟s freshwater resources. The surface water from streams

and rivers contribute approximately 98% of raw water for public water supply, therefore

the availability and quality of the water is of major importance, both for ecosystems and

human consumption.

In a response to deteriorating water quality and supply problems, the „Malaysia

Water Vision 2025‟ was launched in 2001 by the Malaysian Water Partnership (a non-

governmental organisation that advises government and stakeholders on the management

of water resources). It is a progressive policy designed to take Malaysia from where it is

today, to where the country needs to be in the future in order to meet future water demands

and ensure sustainable water use. It outlines many ambitious goals and sets a vision for

future water management. The vision also recognises the importance of rivers and sets an

ambitious target of lowering water pollution and restoring rivers back to a healthy, natural

condition. Implementation of the vision thus far has been underwhelming. The vision

lacks concrete proposals for action with targets or milestones.

Community monitoring programs such as Waterwatch in Australia and Adopt-a-

Stream in the US have been implemented successfully in developed countries and hold

great potential for use in management of Malaysia‟s rivers. Community monitoring is

distinct from formal professional monitoring as it is carried out at a local scale, by

community members with no or limited science training. It has the ability to build

community awareness and understanding of local water issues, and provide crucial

information on river health. Community monitoring may provide an essential

management tool towards restoring Malaysia‟s degraded rivers and achieving Malaysia‟s

Water Vision.

2

Objectives

The project aims to examine the potential of community monitoring to become an

effective management tool of rivers and water resources in Malaysia. The benefits for

both participants and management outcomes will be identified, as well as the challenges

which confront the widespread adoption of the practice. The study will particularly

investigate the ability of community monitoring to achieve certain key objectives,

including;

Providing data which is accurate and reliable;

Providing appropriate data which can inform management and decision-making;

and

Increasing community awareness and understanding of local water issues.

The potential of community monitoring will be examined using two lines of

investigation. In order to assess the accuracy and reliability of community monitoring

results, a river monitoring program will be implemented in a high school and the results

compared with professional assessments. Participants will also be surveyed on their

knowledge and awareness of river and water issues, before and after the program, to

investigate the educational value of water monitoring. In addition, program co-ordinators

of an established community monitoring program will be interviewed and consulted on

their views and experiences on the ability of community monitoring to achieve the

objectives mentioned above.

3

Thesis outline

Following this introductory chapter, chapter 2 summarises the present water

situation in Malaysia. Special emphasis is given to the water quality of rivers and current

management and monitoring practices are described. The Malaysian Water Vision is

presented as a central policy toward the sustainable management of water resources and its

goals and objectives are outlined. Chapter 3 introduces the concept of community

monitoring as a tool for increasing community involvement in natural resource

management. Examples from the literature are used to describe the benefits and

limitations of community monitoring. Finally, community monitoring is placed in the

context of the Malaysian Water Vision and presented as a possible management tool.

Chapters 2 and 3 form the theoretical basis of the study.

Chapters 4 and 5 present the results of fieldwork completed in Malaysia. Chapter

4 details the implementation of a school river invertebrate monitoring program. The

chapter is structured as a standard biological paper, with an introduction, methods, results

and discussion. The concept of biological monitoring is introduced and the possible

sources of error and inaccuracy are described. The methods section documents the

approach used to compare school and professional assessments. Results of comparisons

are presented and discussed, and appropriate modifications to the school protocol are

suggested. Chapter 5 documents the community restoration and monitoring program at

Kelana Jaya Lakes. The achievements of the program are described, as well as the

challenges which confront the widespread adoption of the practice. Chapter 6 draws

together the outcomes of the study and discusses the implications of its findings. The

objectives from the Malaysian Water Vision are used as a framework to present findings.

4

Research Design

Genesis of the study

This research project grew out of my interest in South East Asian environments

and management of natural resources in developing regions. I was introduced to the topic

of community monitoring by my supervisor Dr Catherine Yule who is a lecturer in

Tropical Ecology at Monash University, Malaysia campus. I found the prospect of

researching an emerging method in environmental management to be exciting and began

to investigate the literature surrounding community monitoring. I also began working

with Waterwatch Victoria, a local community monitoring group, who gave me great

insights into how to organise and run monitoring programs involving volunteers. In total,

I spent 5 months in Malaysia conducting fieldwork from July – December 2009.

Overview of fieldwork: Implementation of school monitoring program

The professional study of the river, which was to be compared to the school

monitoring results, began in August. River water and invertebrate samples were collected

from different sites along the river and analysed in the laboratory over the next 3 months.

The school monitoring program was initiated by my supervisor Dr Catherine Yule,

who had contacts within the school. Initial meetings with the teachers took place in July

to design and plan the program. The program involved 6 classes from the middle school

and became part of their science curriculum. Monitoring was spread over 6 days in

September and October. It involved a half-day field trip to the river site, which was just a

5 minute drive from the school. The collected samples and data were then analysed during

a series of classroom sessions in early November. In late November we held a mini-

symposium, where the kids presented their monitoring results and I presented the results

of my monitoring.

Analysis of established community monitoring program

I first came across Global Environment Centre (GEC) when I was researching

rivers in Malaysia. GEC is a Malaysian based environmental NGO focused on

community management of natural resources. I emailed the manager of the rivers and

water division, who sent me a number of resources on GEC programs and initiatives.

5

Upon arrival in Malaysia, I was invited to a GEC workshop for government workers

where they were taught the importance of rivers and river monitoring. I then had regular

casual meetings with GEC staff and undertook a formal interview with the program

manager of the Kelana Jaya Lakes restoration program in December. The interview was

an hour long and recorded on a digital voice recorder. The interview was semi-structured

allowing for flexibility and a more relaxed atmosphere where the participant could feel

comfortable to share ideas and experiences.

6

Chapter 2 - Rivers and Water Resources in Malaysia

Introduction

In this chapter the present status of river pollution in Malaysia will be described as

well as current strategies for monitoring and management. The Malaysian Water Vision

2020 is presented as a central policy towards sustainable water management and the

restoration of river health.

Water Resources in Malaysia

In Malaysia, the availability of water resources has become an important issue in

recent years. Being a tropical region, there is an abundance of rain, more than is needed

for consumption purposes. With fluctuations around the country the average annual

rainfall is 3,000mm which makes up a total volume of 990 billion cubic meters (BCM) of

total annual water resources (Khalit 2007). This translates into an annual average water

availability of 28,400 m3

per capita. The countries water resources are summarised in

Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Water Resources in Malaysia (adapted from Khalit 2007)

Hydrological Parameter Total Volume per Annum (Billion m3)

Annual Rainfall (3,000mm) 990

Evapo-transpiration 360

Effective Rainfall 630

Surface Runoff 566

Groundwater Recharge 64

Surface Artificial Storage (Dams) 25

Total Water Demand 15.5

Streams and rivers with and without impounding reservoirs contribute 98% of total water

used in Malaysia, the remainder is contributed by groundwater. River flow regimes are

irregular and to secure safe yield from water sources, storage facilities have been

7

constructed. Currently there are 47 single purpose and 16 multipurpose dams with a total

storage capacity of 25 billion m3 (Madsen,et al. 2003).

In recent times the water supply situation for Malaysia has changed from one of

relative abundance to one of scarcity. Water shortages, water supply disruptions, and even

water rationing have become commonplace. Population growth, urbanization,

industrialization and the expansion of irrigated agriculture are imposing rapidly increasing

demands and pressure on water resources, besides contributing to the rising water

pollution. Since the 1960s the water demand in Malaysia has increased by an annual

average of 9-10% (Aini et al. 2001). In the fastest developing parts of the nation water

demand is rising even faster, and presently there is nothing indicating that demand for

water will decline in the future. It is estimated that total demand for industry sectors,

agriculture, irrigation and domestic use will rise to 14,504 Million Cubic Meters (MCM),

compared to 1,622 MCM of current demand (Muyibi et al. 2008). In line with Vision

2020, Malaysia is expected to undergo intensive economic development in the years to

come, increasing demand and pressure on an already stretched water supply. Water

shortages and supply problems could impede social and economic activities as set under

the national development plans.

Water management is becoming increasingly comprehensive and complicated due

to large concentrations of population, commercial activities and industries around cities

and towns, increasing water consumption, increasing water pollution, increasing land use

conflicts and climate change. Lee and Facon (2001) identified the five main issues and

challenges facing the Malaysian water sector which affect the sustainability of

development which are summarised below:

a) Institutional and Legal Issues

There is no single agency in the country entrusted with the overall responsibility of

holistic planning and management of water. Water management is shared between the

Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Department of Environment, Department of Town

and Country Planning, Fisheries Department and the National Water Resources Council.

8

Malaysia suffers from a plethora of sector-based water laws, at the federal, state

and local levels (Lee and Facon 2001). At present, water legislation is contained within

the laws that are enforced by the various water-related government agencies, and many of

these laws are outdated, redundant or ambiguous (Lee and Facon 2001).

b) Increased Competition for Water

The problem of population growth has been particularly felt in the urban areas, due

to rural-urban migration and urbanisation. Often the supporting infrastructure for the

collection, treatment and disposal of sewage and solid wastes is inadequate to cope with

the amounts generated.

The increased demand for the limited and diminishing supply of clean water has

led to competition among the various water users, a competition that continued economic

growth exacerbates increasingly. The practicable limit of surface water resources

development has been reached in some regions of high demand, and it has become

necessary to develop inter-basin and interstate surface water transfer schemes.

c) Increased flooding problems

Ironically, at times of water shortages, parts of Malaysia face significant flood

problems. Although floods are natural phenomena arising from excessive rainfall

overwhelming waterways, uncontrolled development activities in watershed areas and

along river corridors can increase the severity of floods. It has been estimated that

altogether about 29,000 km2 or 9% of the total land area of Malaysia are flood-prone,

affecting some 12% of the population (Lee and Facon. 2001). The average annual flood

damage was estimated at RM100 million in 1990, but this has increased due to urban

expansion and the escalation of land and property prices (Lee and Facon 2001).

9

d) River degradation

The development of public utilities such as water supply, sewage, and urban

drainage and flood mitigation programmes helps to promote economic growth. However,

this economic development and the resulting rapid urbanization and industrialization have

given rise to problems of increased water pollution. River water quality and pollution

control needs to be addressed urgently since 98% of the total water used originates from

rivers.

e) Low efficiency of water use

Efficiency of water use in Malaysia is generally low. Irrigation efficiency is in the

range of 40 to 50%, because almost all of the irrigation systems are open systems designed

to take advantage of flooding (Lee and Facon 2001). There is also a high proportion of

unaccounted-for water in urban water supply systems, as one quarter to one third of the

domestic and industrial water is lost before it reaches the consumers. These losses are the

result of leaks in the distribution systems and of illegal connections. As the physical

limits of water supply are being reached, more emphasis needs to be placed on increased

efficiency in water use.

Rivers in Malaysia

Being a peninsula (West Malaysia) and part of Borneo Island (Sabah and

Sarawak), rivers are numerous and relatively short. Originating from the central

highlands, more than 189 river systems containing 1800 rivers and tributaries traverse the

country, a total length of 38,000km (Zakaria et al. 2003). Rivers and their surrounding

areas are renowned as the centre for population growth and development since the

beginning of human civilisation in Malaysia, as in most areas of the world. Throughout

history rivers have provided many essential services such as transportation and navigation,

water supply, irrigation, drainage, waste disposal systems, food supply, and in recent

years, power generation. Therefore, it is no surprise that until today, rivers remain the

10

centre of human activity that influences the lives and culture of Malaysian society

(Department of Environment 2008).

River Pollution

Throughout history, river water quality deterioration in Malaysia has been

synonymous with development. Water resources development has been a catalyst for the

socio-economic development of the country during the past decades. Dams and

kilometres of pipelines and canals divert water from rivers to sustain domestic, industrial

and agricultural needs. At the same time, the main economic activities of each era are

reflected in the patterns of river pollution. From the 1960s-1980s, agro-based industries

were the main pollution sources, in the 1990s the manufacturing industries were the

dominant polluters. Today with the housing boom in Malaysia and increasing

urbanisation, domestic sewage and erosion from construction and land clearance is the

main pollution source. The main sources of pollution are briefly discussed below:

Agro-based industries

Malaysia is the world‟s second largest producer of palm oil (the first up until 2007

when Indonesia took over) and the third largest of rubber (Wu et al. 2009). Export

earnings from these products contribute significantly to the nation‟s economy but the

plantations are also the largest producer of agricultural wastes. Palm oil mill effluent and

effluent from the processing of natural rubber were identified as the major contributors to

the rapid deterioration of the aquatic environment in the 1970s and 1980s (Abdullah

1995). According to the Department of Environment, the contribution of the agro-based

industries to the organic pollution load has decreased substantially from 67% in 1980,

15% in 1986, and to 3% as of 2004 (Muyibi et al. 2008). The government attributes the

reduction in pollution to the effectiveness of legislation governing discharge of specific

effluents, coupled with necessary enforcement mechanisms which required the oil palm

and rubber industries to design and adopt appropriate treatment technologies (Wu et al.

2009). However, the decrease is just as much a reflection of the changing pollution loads

than actual decrease in the amount of pollution produced by the industry. To date the

industry still produces 1,222 tonnes of organic pollution every day (Wu et al. 2009).

11

Industrial Pollution

Concomitant with the rapid pace of industrialisation, increasing amounts of toxic

and hazardous wastes are being generated by a wide range of industrial activities. A

survey back in 1995 involving the manufacturing industries, estimated total industrial

effluents to be 380,000m3 per year (Muyibi et al. 2008). Food and beverage industries

followed by the chemical production industry were identified as the major pollution

sources. Rivers that support industrial activities have been frequently observed to contain

significant levels of heavy metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium, exceeding

minimum recommended levels (Abdul Rahman 2004).

Sewage

Sewage works often lag behind development projects, with sewage disposal

usually considered as an „afterthought‟. In the year 1981, the Department of Environment

recognised the need to increase sewage system projects in Malaysia. At this time, sewage

systems were only available in a few places such as Georgetown, Shah Alam and Kuala

Lumpur (Abdullah 1995). Today, Malaysia has over 8000 sewage plants and

approximately 7,500 km of sewers, mostly situated in urban areas, serving more than 12

million people (Abdullah 1995). However, most people rely on septic tanks or dispose of

sewage directly into rivers and waterways. Rivers used for water supply often have

alarming levels of bacteriological contamination due to the discharge of

untreated/inadequately treated domestic sewage particularly coastal waterways, as

evidenced by the extensive faecal contamination of coastal waters off the more populated

states in Malaysia. Between 2000-2004, domestic sewage was the highest pollution

source in Malaysia, responsible for 53% of all water pollution (Khalit 2007).

Animal husbandry

Pig farms were the second highest pollution source from 2000-2004, responsible

for 38% of all water pollution (Khalit 2007). Pig farming has a high demand for water,

resulting in large quantities of wastewater being discharged into rivers, with high organic

loads (Abdullah 1995). Wastes from the pig industry include urine, faeces and trace

12

metals such as zinc, lead and copper (Muyibi et al. 2008). Technology is available to treat

wastewater to the extent that it can be reused and thereby avoiding the pollution of

waterways, and decreasing the high water demand of the industry. However, the industry

is predominantly made of small producers who cannot afford to install the appropriate

treatment technology (Muyabi et al. 2008).

Erosion and Siltation Control

Heavy sedimentation of Malaysia‟s rivers resulting from deforestation and erosion

from earthworks activities is emerging as Malaysia‟s dominant pollution source. It is

common practice to remove all vegetation from relatively large surface areas of land in the

pursuit of economic activities and preparation for the construction of houses and roads in

particular. The Department of Environment monitored suspended solids over a 5 year

period and found that 69 out of the 89 rivers monitored were affected by soil erosion and

siltation (Khalit, 2007).

River Monitoring

The responsibility for controlling and monitoring the health of Malaysia‟s rivers is

with the Department of Environment, which has been conducting river monitoring since

1978 (Abdul Rahman 2004). The goal of the monitoring is to establish water quality

status, detect any changes or degradation and identify pollution sources. A total of 1,064

manual stations are located within 120 river basins throughout Malaysia (Department of

Environment 2008). In addition, 15 automatic water quality monitoring stations have

been installed to monitor river quality changes on a continuous basis (Department of

Environment 2008). This involves routine monitoring at predetermined stations, in-situ

and laboratory analysis and data interpretation in terms of physical-chemical

characteristics. River water quality appraisal is based on the river Water Quality Index

(WQI), consisting of six parameters (Department of Environment 2008), namely:

DO (Dissolved Oxygen) BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand)

COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) AN (Ammoniacal Nitrogen)

SS (Suspended Solids) pH (pH value)

13

Water quality data collected from monitored rivers are then compared with the

Interim National Water Quality Standards for Malaysia (NWQS) to determine their status

as clean, slightly polluted or polluted. The findings are published in the annual State of

the Environment report in accordance with the Environmental Quality Act 1974. For

2007, out of 143 river basins monitored, 91 (63%) were found to be clean, 45 (32%)

slightly polluted and 7 (5%) polluted (Figure 2.1). This is a slight improvement from

1997 where out of the 114 basins monitored, 24 (21%) were clean, 68 (58%) slightly

polluted and 25 (21%) polluted (Figure 2.1). However, such chemical monitoring has

shortcomings, for example pristine waterbodies in peat swamps would be considered

polluted on the basis of their naturally high acidity, and low dissolved oxygen.

Figure 2.1 River basins water quality trend 1997 – 2007 (Department of Environment

2008).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Nu

mb

er

of

Riv

er

Bas

ins

Year

Clean

Slightly Polluted

Polluted

14

Malaysia’s Water Vision

The Malaysian Water Vision was developed on the framework of the World Water

Vision, which came as a response by the World Water Council to growing water problems

worldwide. The Vision is characterised by a participatory approach with extensive

consultation with groups in and beyond the water sector and prescribes future actions

needed for sustainable water use to become a reality (Lee and Facon 2001). The idea is

that countries adopt the main concepts in the Vision and adjust it to their own needs where

necessary. The Malaysian visioning process was undertaken by the Malaysian Water

Partnership (MWP) which operates within the Department of Irrigation and Drainage

(DID). The framework for the Vision was agreed upon during a series of national

consultations with the water sector. The Malaysian Water Vision is formulated as

follows:

“In support of Vision 2020 (towards achieving developed nation status), Malaysia will

conserve and manage its water resources to ensure adequate and safe water for all

(including the environment)”

The key objectives were identified as follows:

Water for people: all have access to safe, adequate, and affordable water supply, hygiene

and sanitation.

Water for food and rural development: provision of sufficient water that will ensure

national food security and promote rural development.

Water for economic development: provision of sufficient water to spur and sustain

economic growth within the context of a knowledge-based economy and e-commerce.

Water for the environment: protection of the water environment to preserve water

resources (both surface and groundwater) and flow regimes, biodiversity and cultural

heritage, and to mitigate water related hazards.

(Lee and Facon 2001; p25)

15

Integrated Water Resources Management

The main instrument towards achieving these goals is a change in management

practice towards Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM). IWRM is a water

governance management paradigm. It starts with the recognition that water is a core

development issue and therefore, management of the water resource will affect almost

every activity within the wider economy and society, including industrial activity, land

use, population and settlement growth (Madsen et al. 2003). The Vision describes IWRM

as:

“A holistic and participatory approach to water management. It requires a move from

sectoral to integrated management, from top-down to stakeholder and demand responsive

approaches, from supply fix to demand management, from command and control to more

co-operative forms of governance and from closed expert-driven management

organisations to more open, transparent, communicative bodies” (Madsen et al. 2003;

p43)

An important feature of IWRM is the management of rivers from an ecosystem

health approach. It views the river as a living system consisting of biological, chemical

and physical features that are all interrelated and interdependent. This is an approach that

views the maintenance of natural cycles and processes as vital for current and future

abilities and ecosystems to provide goods and services to meet human needs (Andan and

Nordin 2001). “Among the common characteristics of an ecosystem-based approach are

holistic, interdisciplinary, goal-oriented, participatory and aimed at getting people to

realise that humans are part of the ecosystem - not separate from it” (Andan and Nordin

2001; p333). Moving closer to the ecosystem approach in environmental planning and

management will be a vital step towards making development sustainable in Malaysia.

Implementation

It is acknowledged that the country is facing an enormous task in order to

implement Integrated Water Resources Management, and that major changes in the

16

institutional set-up are necessary. The „way forward‟ is prescribed in the vision and

indicates the way in which to implement IWRM in a Malaysian context. A framework of

action has been formulated with 16 key milestones and targets to achieve specific

improvements in the water sector. For the purposes of this study, special emphasis is put

on the following:

a) Increased awareness of the economic, social and environmental value of

water among decision-makers and politicians and the public

b) Promotion of river education

c) Significant reduction of pollution from point and non-point sources

d) Full restoration of rivers and return of aquatic life

e) Water ecosystems‟ protection

f) Frequent dialogue with all stake holders in the water sector

g) Participatory approach in decision-making

h) Resource assessment and monitoring

(Lee et al. 2001; p25)

The responsible agencies for the implementation of the Vision were identified as

the Economic Planning Unit (EPU), the Malaysian Water Partnership and the National

Water Resource Council (NWRC) (Lee et al. 2001). The ministries of Education and

Information will also assist to enhance public awareness.

Evaluation

The Malaysian Water Vision is an ambitious document including many visionary

goals and statements, but the question arises: is the document only providing an

ideological vision and not policy-goals and objectives that can actually be achieved? The

intent of an effective policy must be the establishment of a strategy and the approach to be

taken to achieve these goals. To secure successful implementation it should include

concrete proposals for action with explicit targets and goals. Madsen et al. (2001) believes

that it is important that goals are clear, limited, explicit, mutually reinforcing and in

compliance with instruments that are envisaged to implement and enforce them. The main

objectives of the Vision do not possess these important features. The Vision was

developed by representatives from many different positions and interests in Malaysian

17

society and therefore various opinions are represented. Some commentators have stated

that this has diminished the objectives of the Vision and its power to achieve „real‟ change

in management of water resources (Madsen et al. 2003; Abidin 2004).

Conclusion

The availability of water in Malaysia has become an important issue in recent

years. Rapid development has put tremendous stress and demands on water resources, and

issues with water supply and availability threaten to limit Malaysia‟s plans for future

development. Rivers contribute the overwhelming bulk of available water, and

degradation of river environments and water quality is seen as the major impediment to

providing a reliable water supply. Malaysia‟s Water Vision has been presented as the

central policy towards sustainable water management. However, for the Vision to become

a reality and not just another example of symbol-politics, specific action programs need to

be put forward, implemented and monitored.

18

Chapter 3 - Community Monitoring

Introduction

This chapter introduces the concept of community monitoring as a tool for

increasing community involvement in environmental management. The benefits for both

participants and management outcomes are explored, as are the challenges which confront

the widespread adoption of the practice. Finally, community monitoring is presented as a

potential management tool towards achieving Malaysia‟s Water Vision.

Community Involvement in Environmental Management

Community Monitoring makes up one component of the broader contribution of

public participation in the management and protection of environmental resources. Public

participation has become seen as increasingly vital in achieving sustainable environmental

outcomes, given the growing recognition of the need to include local communities in the

decisions that affect the environment in which they live (Harding 1998). Rather than

outside program makers unilaterally defining environmental programs, stakeholders are

empowered, through a process of group learning and consensus-building to create and

manage their own programs (Burgess et al. 2009). Local communities are encouraged to

develop this participatory process on their own, or if required, with the help of outsiders

(government, international agency or NGO staff) who act as catalysts or facilitators of the

process (Campbell et al. 2003).

Perhaps the biggest breakthrough for community involvement came when the

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development agreed under Agenda 21 to

emphasise the importance of rethinking the „top-down‟ approach to environmental

management in favour of one that involves people‟s participation and accommodates

indigenous knowledge, local values and interests (United Nations, 1992). This bedding

down of local participation in environmental decision-making was signed by 178 member

nations, supplying the international legislative framework from which state-based

management programs could build on (United Nations, 1992). Today, international banks,

governments and NGO‟s are allocating enormous amounts of financial and logistical aid

toward community based management programs and policies (Cuthill 2000).

19

Community Monitoring

Community monitoring provides the public with a means by which to become

more involved in decision-making, by collecting data to inform natural resource

management (Danielsen et al. 2005). Most of the literature on methods of natural resource

monitoring covers an externally driven approach in which professional researchers from

outside the study area set up, run, and analyse the results from a monitoring program that

has been funded by a remote agency. This approach has been criticised for being too

expensive to sustain over time and reliant on outside actors (Sheil 2001). Alternatives are

emerging which are carried out at a local level, by community members who may not have

received technical training, or formal education in their field of interest (Danielsen et al.

2005). Community monitoring can often reinforce existing community-based resource

management systems and lead to changes in the attitude of locals towards environmentally

sustainable resource management (Danielsen et al. 2007).

Importance of Environmental Monitoring

Monitoring has been defined as the systematic measurement of variables and

processes over time and assumes that there is a specific reason for that collection of data,

such as ensuring that standards are being met (Spellerberg 1991). Monitoring of natural

resources has become increasingly important in providing adequate knowledge of trends

in species and habitats to make informed policy decisions. According to Danielsen et al.

(2005), there are three kinds of actors and actions for which such monitoring is becoming

increasingly important:

1. At the international, regional and national scales a raft of policy initiatives have

committed Governments to achieving quantitative targets in conserving

biodiversity and ensuring its benefits are shared equally (Danielsen et al. 2005).

2. Monitoring is crucial at all scales for conservationists to assess the success of their

efforts. Ways of measuring the effectiveness of different projects and programs

are increasingly required by institutions and individuals that fund conservation

agencies and NGOs.

20

3. Thirdly, and most crucial to the context of this study, the past two decades has seen

a progressive shift towards involving local communities formally in the

management of protected areas, and these newly recognised partnerships require

monitoring data to inform their decisions.

Shortfalls of Professional Monitoring

In the past, most attention has been paid to what has been termed „professional

monitoring‟, conducted by trained scientists working primarily for government agencies or

NGOs (Danielsen et al. 2005). Criticism of this approach has emerged especially in

developing countries, where there is a lack of financial and human resources. Professional

monitoring is often costly, at least relative to the budgets of conservation agencies.

Employing scientists with appropriate field and analytical skills, buying and maintaining

monitoring equipment and running data analysis facilities requires a significant amount of

resources (Devlin et al. 2001).

Professional monitoring is often seen as paying inadequate attention to the

objectives of other key stakeholders besides professional resource managers, especially

local communities whose livelihoods are often closely impacted by the resources

concerned (Sheil 2001). Professional monitoring can address this through extensive

dialogue with all stakeholders at the onset and throughout the course of monitoring.

However, in reality due to shortages of money, time, and trained personnel this rarely

occurs.

Benefits of Community Monitoring

Increased community involvement in monitoring of natural resources has the

potential to provide great benefit for both environmental managers and local communities

(Whitelaw et al. 2003). Community-based approaches have considerable potential to

complement professional monitoring, especially in developing countries by addressing the

some of the shortfalls mentioned earlier. While the preference is for community

monitoring to help inform management at the planning and policy stage, community

collected data can be used to critique management by providing data on the progress or

success of a given management intervention (Whitelaw et al. 2003) .

21

Furthermore, community monitoring can provide a link to governance itself, by

providing an active first step for citizens to participate in the management of a shared

natural resource (Ticheleret al. 1998). The knowledge and experience gained by volunteer

participants through monitoring projects can increase their capacity for a more inclusive

role in future management of natural resources (Ticheler et al. 1998). Experiences

indicate that community monitoring can be considered a social, cultural and political

process of bringing people together in new ways, coming to understand different views

and enhancing democratic decision-making on what type of measures to take (Van

Rijsoort and Jinfeng 2005).

Community Knowledge and Empowerment

Beyond the potential natural resource benefits, community monitoring can lead to

enhanced awareness and education, and a change in attitudes towards more

environmentally sustainable natural resource management among local participants

(Tawake 2001; Danielsen et al. 2005). It has been shown that through learning about their

environment, local monitors themselves are likely to share the knowledge they gather with

other members of the community (Andrianandrasana et al. 2005).

Building Social Networks

The potential partnerships which can be created through monitoring can produce

many invaluable outcomes for both the communities and agencies involved (Tawake

2001). The process of undertaking a monitoring program, determining how to utilise data

and influence decision-making leads to the development of social capital through the

creation of social networks (Whitelaw et al. 2003), and an increase in trust and

understanding between those involved in the monitoring process (Van Rijsoort 2005). In

this sense, community monitoring could be considered not just scientific process, but a

social, cultural and political process of bringing people together in new ways, coming to

understand different views, and enhancing democratic decision-making on what types of

measures to take (Guijt 1998).

22

Community monitoring can also be a valuable tool in improving communication

and understanding between local communities and government authorities. Monitoring

schemes can provide an opportunity for the public to interact and collaborate with

government bodies and administrative officials in charge of natural resource management

(Becker et al. 2005). Mutual awareness and a deeper knowledge of the different points of

view can reduce misunderstandings and friction. Experiences have shown that community

monitoring schemes can lead to increased trust between local stakeholders, and to more

transparent, accountable and democratic decision-making, thereby fostering a sense of

good governance (Guijt 1998).

Cost

Community monitoring data is likely to be much more cost effective than the

professional equivalent; an important consideration given the financial limitations often

confronting natural resource management, especially in developing regions (Burgess et al.

2009). While monitoring programs might require an initial cost outlay for training and

recruitment purposes, the post-establishment costs are generally minimal (Becker et al.

2005).

Sampling Intensity

An added benefit of using volunteers in an assessment program is the ability of a

group of volunteers to sample at multiple locations at one time. Professionals must

monitor a large number of widely disturbed sites, so they may only be able to visit a site

once every few years, which greatly limits their ability to detect short-term changes in

ecological conditions (Engel 2002). In addition, volunteers often monitor the areas where

they live or go for recreation, so they can watch for changing conditions and report them

in a timely fashion (Maas 1991).

23

Limitations of Community Monitoring

Monitoring Accuracy and Reliability

As volunteer collected data is increasingly incorporated into important regulatory

decisions that have far-reaching consequences, concerns have been raised over the validity

of using data from volunteers. Decision-makers have traditionally been sceptical about

the reliability of volunteer collected data, which is commonly viewed as an educational

exercise rather than the scientific collection of data (Penrose 1995). Community

monitoring can often lack data validation procedures which are required in traditional

scientific studies. If community data is to be used for the purposes of management and

decision-making, then it must be reinforced by data validation and quality control

procedures

Motivation

As community monitoring is volunteer-focused, understanding the motivation and

objectives of individuals is vital in retaining participants in monitoring programs. If

monitoring data is not feeding back into management, participants can lose faith in

achieving their specified goals (Sharpe 2006). In Halifax, Canada, water quality

monitoring provided evidence of increased sedimentation of local waterways, yet the lack

of action from local authorities resulted in participant disillusionment and a desire to drop

out of the program (Sharpe 2006). Monitoring can seem useless if participants are

observing the environmental degradation worsening, without any mitigating action taking

place (Sharpe 2006).

Funding

As mentioned earlier, community monitoring is generally more cost-effective than

professional monitoring, however, the costs associated with training and equipment can

see monitoring programs incur costs which threaten the sustainability of the project

(Topp-Jorgensen et al. 2004). In addition, if monitoring projects are established by an

external donor, such as an NGO, local participants may not have the resources or expertise

to continue with the project when external funding and support ceases (Andrianandrasana

et al. 2005). .

24

Community Monitoring and the Malaysian Water Vision

As discussed in the previous chapter, the Malaysian Water Vision sets many

ambitious goals and objectives, targeted at the sustainable management of water resources

in Malaysia. The vision, however, lacks specific action plans and to-date the progress

towards achieving the vision can be described as underwhelming. Community monitoring

stands out as a practical management tool which has the potential to make significant

contribution towards the vision.

Community monitoring has the capacity to address a number of the key objectives

in the vision including:

i) Increased awareness of the economic, social and environmental value of

water among decision-makers and politicians and the public

j) Promotion of river education

k) Significant reduction of pollution from point and non-point sources

l) Full restoration of rivers and return of aquatic life

m) Water ecosystems protection

n) Frequent dialogue with all stake holders in the water sector

o) Participatory approach in decision-making

p) Resource assessment and monitoring

(Lee 2001, pp25)

Various examples in the literature, which are discussed earlier in the chapter, demonstrate

that community monitoring can lead to increased community knowledge and

empowerment, the building of social capacity, and can act as an adjunct to the shortfalls in

professional monitoring. If community monitoring is to be adopted for use in Malaysian

rivers, weaknesses in the accuracy and reliability volunteer collected data, and the level of

community motivation need to be acknowledged and managed accordingly.

25

Conclusion

Community monitoring offers a potential pathway to involve the public in

environmental management. It provides many benefits for both participants and

management outcomes, and is especially effective in developing regions where traditional

monitoring can be restrained by a shortage of human and financial resources. Community

monitoring may provide a useful tool in achieving the goals stated in Malaysia‟s Water

Vision, however, limitations in the accuracy and reliability of volunteer monitoring results

need to be addressed.

26

Chapter 4 - Implementation of an Invertebrate

Monitoring Program in a Malaysian High School

Introduction

Malaysia currently lacks any recognised protocols for biological assessments of

rivers and streams, or any established community monitoring programs. This chapter

describes the design and implementation of an invertebrate monitoring program in a

Malaysian high school. School monitoring results are compared to professional

assessments to assess accuracy and any necessary modifications to the school protocol are

suggested.

Biological Monitoring

Biological monitoring (also called bio-monitoring or bio-assessment) is defined as

an evaluation of the condition of a water body using biological surveys and other direct

measurements of the resident biota in surface waters (Engel 2002). Biological monitoring

can be done with any living organisms, but benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, and algal

assemblages are used most often, in that order. Benthic macroinvertebrates are those

organisms that live on the bottom of aquatic environments, or on objects protruding above

the bottom, and are large enough to see by eye without any magnification. Although

complete studies may include all three assemblages, benthic macroinvertebrates are used

most often for several reasons. First, benthic macroinvertebrates do not migrate very far,

thereby ensuring exposure to a pollutant or stress reliably conveys local conditions. This

reliable representation of ecological conditions allows for comparison of sites that are in

close proximity. Second, macroinvertebrate life stages are short enough that sensitive life

stages will be affected by stress, but long enough that any impairment is measurable in the

assemblage. Benthic macroinvertebrates are found in even the smallest streams and have

a wide range of sensitivity to all types of pollution and stress, allowing for monitoring in

most conditions. Finally, sampling benthic macroinvertebrates is easy, cost effective, and

does not permanently harm the local assemblage. Impairment can easily be detected by

27

the trained monitor with even the simplest of identifications (Plafkin et al. 1989; Voshell

et al. 1997).

Biological Monitoring is recognised in many parts of the world as fundamental to

sustainable management of the globe‟s freshwater resources. In Europe, for example, the

European Framework Directive (2000) requires that water resources be subject to

ecological assessment, to provide a basis for management and restoration efforts of water

catchments. In Australia, water quality has been assessed nationally using biological

indicators since the mid-1990s, to guide water management agencies as well as the recent

National Water Initiative (2006)(Newall et al. 2006). In America, the use of biological

surveys to regulate water quality has become widespread, following the 1987 amendments

to the federal Clean Water Act, where section 101(a) states that its primary objectives are

to “restore, maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nations waters”

(Mebane 2001).

Biological measurements provide direct information on the condition of groups of

biota resident in the water resource, and therefore on the condition of the resource. Thus,

they address management issues more directly and can provide a more sensitive time-

integrated assessment of river condition than physical or chemical parameters (Marchant

et al. 2006).

Biological Monitoring in Malaysia

As mentioned earlier, Malaysia, as in much of the developing world, lacks any

formal biological monitoring programs, relying on traditional physio-chemical and

microbial measurements. The only biological data collected are for microbial analyses,

such as measurements of total coliform and faecal coliform bacteria (Morse et al. 2007).

Morse et al. (2007) lists the main impediments to macroinvertebrate monitoring as:

(1) Lack of knowledge about macroinvertebrate fauna and their tolerance or sensitivity

to pollution, especially during aquatic, immature stages.

28

(2) The scarcity of trained professionals with the knowledge required to implement

biological monitoring, and lack of formal training opportunities offered in

universities.

(3) Shortage of high quality microscopes and other necessary resources.

(4) Limited government understanding and support for bio-monitoring, few regulatory

staff and the persistence of old monitoring techniques.

Although there are no established biological monitoring programs in Malaysia, some

studies have been completed by university research groups, on the impact of a variety of

disturbance on macroinvertebrate assemblages (e.g. Chin 2003), but these mostly remain

unpublished (Morse et al. 2007). A recent study comparing macroinvertebrate

assemblages between a polluted urban stream (Langat River) and a pristine river,

identified several macroinvertebrate species as potential bioindicators for polluted and

clean environments (Azrina et al. 2006). A guide to the aquatic macroinvertebrate fauna

of the region was published in 2004 (Yule and Yong 2004). However, until there is

greater knowledge of local fauna and their response to pollution, as well as trained

taxonomists and biologists to implement programs, biological monitoring will remain

uncommon.

Monitoring Methods

A variety of protocols have been developed for conducting macroinvertebrate

monitoring worldwide. Appropriate methods for collecting, sorting, and identifying

macroinvertebrate samples are dependent on the objectives of the monitoring program.

Monitoring protocols can range from comprehensive quantitative sampling, conducted by

professional biologists, to rapid qualitative sampling, conducted in schools. Rapid

methods have substantial advantages for routine monitoring over traditional quantitative

methods: costs are much lower and results can be obtained in a shorter time. In recent

times, with management emphasis on timely, cost effective monitoring, rapid methods are

increasingly being favoured to avoid the time-consuming quantitative elements of

29

traditional biological assessment (Chessman 1995). However, rapid methods do not

provide accurate information on abundance of species, and it has therefore been assumed

that such methods can detect only gross impacts and are inevitably less sensitive than

quantitative methods. This assumption has not been adequately tested.

Collection of Macroinvertebrate Samples

A common method used by professional biologists for the collection of river

macroinvertebrate samples is the Surber sampler. The technique allows for the easy

quantification of samples and is used for intensive studies on macroinvertebrate

community structure. However, quantitative studies are inherently expensive and time

consuming, as such, there is a need to consider alternative, cost effective methods for the

routine monitoring of benthic fauna. The pond net or kick net sample has gained

acceptance as the preferred method for rapid monitoring assessment as „a convenient,

qualitative method which does not rely on cumbersome or expensive equipment‟ (Storey

et al. 1991). Several studies have compared samples taken from Surber samplers with

kick net samples (Hornig 1978; Mackey et al. 1984; Storey et al. 1991; Torralba Burrial

2007). Storey (1990) compared the effectiveness of the two techniques and found that

kick samples tended to have a greater abundance macroinvertebrates, whereas, Surber

samples contained a higher species richness and low-occurrence (rare) taxa. Hornig

(1987) proposed that the kick technique will sample the more easily dislodged and highly

mobile taxa, whereas the Surber method, being more intensive will take cryptic and

closely adherent taxa (Hornig 1978). The inability of kick net samples to detect low-

occurrence taxa is a concern for environmental assessment. Part of such assessment is the

detection of rare and potentially endangered species.

Sorting Macroinvertebrate Samples

The two most common techniques for sorting macroinvertebrates are lab-sorting

and live-sorting (Nichols 2006). Traditionally, macroinvertebrate samples will be

preserved for transportation to the laboratory, and then macroinvertebrates will be sorted

from the debris using a stereo microscope, the objective being to sort and identify every

30

organism in the sample. Complete sorting and counting of all the invertebrates in large

samples can be time-consuming and costly, so sub-sampling (such as fixing the numbers

of animals counted) is often employed. Live sorting of samples on site is a popular

technique in Australian water monitoring programs. Live specimens are picked from the

sample, by eye, either for a set period of time or until a certain number of specimens is

selected (Nichols 2006). According to Chessman (1995), live-sorting has several benefits

over lab-sorting, including;

(i) speeds up the overall assessment,

(ii) avoids the retention of unwanted specimens and debris,

(iii) facilitated by animal movements,

(iv) more convenient than laboratory picking for habitats such as large rocks or

logs; and

(v) cost effective.

Several studies have compared the effectiveness of the different sorting techniques

(Kerans et al. 1992; Chessman 1995; Metzeling et al. 2002; Nichols 2006; Nerbonne et al.

2008; Gillies et al. 2009). Most studies have found that live picking will result in higher

relative abundance of large, mobile invertebrates compared to lab-sorting, because smaller

organisms are harder to recognise with the naked eye.

Identification and Taxonomic Level

Arguably the most debated issue related to bio-assessment methods is the

establishment of appropriate taxonomic resolution levels. Of all aspects of bio-

monitoring, the identification of organisms requires the most resources, specialised

knowledge and is the most time-consuming. Many authors call for species-level

identifications to ensure accurate assessments of ecosystem health (Resh 1975; Simpson et

al. 1985; Houston et al. 2001). Resh et al. (1975) stated that lower taxonomic resolution is

“generally useless, because particular species may vary widely in ecological tolerance”.

Species have particular traits, preferences and tolerances which are important determinates

of landscape patterns in their occurrence and abundance. Thus assemblages respond to

31

environmental gradients via the traits, preferences and tolerances of the component species

(Poff 1997). Consequently, in studies using macroinvertebrates as indicators for

monitoring rivers and streams, species level identifications in comparison with lower

resolution identifications can have greater information content and result in more reliable

site classifications (Barbour et al. 1996); can give greater resolution to detecting

differences between reference and test sites; are required for detecting the presence of rare

or threatened species (Bouchard et al. 2005) and thus may be required for the

identification of sites for protection in conservation studies. However, many monitoring

programs identify specimens to the resolution of family rather than species, and some

biotic indices (e.g. EPT) utilise macroinvertebrate data at the order level (Marshall et al.

2006). There are often time and financial restrictions limiting how much effort can be

directed towards the identification of each specimen and the cost, in terms of time and

expertise, of identifying macroinvertebrates to species-level are high. In addition, finer

taxonomic resolutions can decrease the accuracy of identifications in the absence of

trained taxonomists (Bouchard et al. 2005). To help solve the problem of taxonomic

resolution, Ellis (1985) suggests „taxonomic sufficiency‟ as a concept that “in any project

organisms must be identified to a level (species, genera, family etc.) which balances the

need to indicate the biology of organisms with the accuracy in making identifications”.

Omitting pragmatic constraints (e.g. resources or knowledge limitations), four aspects of a

study can influence the taxonomic sufficiency:

(1) the purpose of the study;

(2) sensitivity required;

(3) type of analysis; and

(4) the group of organisms of interest (Ellis 1985).

32

Volunteer Monitoring

Freshwater macroinvertebrate monitoring has been widely promoted as a means to

educate the general public and involve them in the care of local waterways. Volunteer

monitoring allows communities to understand local ecosystems firsthand, build

relationships with scientists and government mangers, and interact around science-based

conservation (Fore et al. 2001). In addition, volunteers are encouraged to contribute their

data to local and state databases to track long-term trends in water quality. Government

agencies and regulators worldwide suffer from a lack of resources and professional

biologists, especially in the developing world, leaving large information and knowledge

gaps on water resources. In many parts of the world volunteers have recently organised

and stepped forward to help fill the sampling gap. There are many volunteer programs in

place around the world that are thought to be successful at collecting data at lower costs

than professional surveys. Much has been written on the merits of volunteer biological

monitoring (Reynoldson et al. 1986; Firehock 1995; Penrose 1995; Fore et al. 2001;

Engel 2002; Nerbonne et al. 2008). Firehock (1995) identified the main purposes of

volunteer monitoring, including:

(1) Educating the local community about water quality and river health,

(2) Tracking stream water quality at locations of interest to citizen groups and/or

locations where state and local governments lack data,

(3) Establishing long-term trends for the stream and providing baseline

information,

(4) Identifying streams in need of restoration or cleanup, or streams that may

threatened,

(5) Locating pollution problems such as dumping, spills, or unregulated

discharges,

(6) Determining the success of management practices and restoration efforts; and

(7) Providing tools for country and city planners to make decisions on land-use

and growth.

33

It has been assumed that with proper training and adequate quality

control/assurance plans, volunteers can collect data suitable for making regulatory

decisions. The United States EPA has decided that data from volunteers can and should

be used in reports that are required from states on current environmental condition of

waterbodies. Volunteer collected data in Australia is used in annual government reports

on the state of the environment, and the Victorian EPA has used volunteer data for the

detection and prosecution of illegal discharges (Thompson 2004).

As volunteer data is increasingly incorporated into important regulatory decisions

that have far-reaching consequences, concerns have been raised over the validity of using

data from volunteers. Some of the primary reasons for concern are the level to which

volunteers identify macroinvertebrates, the limitations of their collecting techniques, and

the level of training the volunteers receive (Penrose 1995). The monitoring activities and

methods of community groups often differ from that of professional scientists, due to

more complex and multiple aims of monitoring programs. While the principle aim of

scientific monitoring is data accuracy, many community groups seek primarily to educate

and inform the volunteers involved (Nicholson et al. 2002). The accuracy of equipment

used by community groups is constrained by cost of purchase and use (such as

microscopes or chemical products). A further constraint is the educative value of the

equipment: understanding the mechanisms involved in measuring a parameter can result in

a greater comprehension of the issues involved (Fore et al. 2001). For example, a turbidity

tube allows the user to see directly how turbid the water is, and thus better understand the

meaning of higher levels of turbidity than by simply recording the electronic reading from

a meter.

While volunteer monitoring provides opportunities for both enhancing citizen

engagement and collecting valuable data, organizers experience a classic tension when

deciding whether to devote resources to collecting quality data or to encouraging broad

citizen participation. This tension is exacerbated because scientists have traditionally been

sceptical about the accuracy of citizen-collected data (Penrose 1995).

34

To date, there have only been a few cursory studies comparing the results of

volunteer biological monitoring to professional monitoring (Mellanby 1974; Reynoldson

et al. 1986; Dilley 1991; Penrose 1995; Fore et al. 2001; Engel 2002; Nerbonne et al.

2008). In the UK, Reynoldson et al. (1986) found reasonable agreement between data

collected by school students and historical data from government biologists. In a similar

study, State of Washington researchers showed that trained volunteers who were

identifying organisms to family were able to assess water quality as effectively as

professional resource managers (Fore et al. 2001). Volunteer biological monitoring has

not fared as well in other comparative studies. In North Carolina, untrained volunteers

were able to identify higher quality streams, but were unable to differentiate the lower

quality streams (Penrose 1995). Sampling in Ohio indicated that volunteers were able to

determine if streams were attaining their designated use category, but had a tendency to

overrate the condition of water quality when compared to professionals sampling with the

same methods (Dilley 1991). Engel et al. (2002) conducted a two year study in which

they assessed the Virginia Save Our Streams Protocol. Initial testing revealed that

volunteer results consistently overrated ecological conditions, were not significantly

correlated with professional results, and did not accurately reflect the condition of a

stream. Engel et al. (2002) then modified the volunteer metric that relied only on taxa

presence, and developed a new multimetric, order-level index that was significantly

correlated with professional results.

Because of the disparity in the conclusions mentioned above and the importance of

this issue in the environmental regulation of freshwater natural resources, this study sets

out to conduct a thorough investigation of the effectiveness of volunteer biological

monitoring with benthic macroinvertebrates in streams. The objectives of the study were

as follows;

Implement a biological monitoring program in a Malaysian school.

Assess the benefits of monitoring for the participants involved.

35

Assess the accuracy and credibility of volunteer bio-assessments by

comparing them with assessments made by professional biologists.

Recommend modifications to improve the volunteer method should it not

compare favourably with professional results.

.

36

Materials and Methods

The purpose of the study was to compare the precision of assessments made by

volunteers with those made by professionals, and determine whether volunteer collected

data is appropriate for management and decision-making purposes in Malaysia. To test

this, a pilot study was implemented at a local school in Kuala Lumpur using amateur

water monitoring methods, modelled on the established volunteer water monitoring

program in Australia (Waterwatch). Alongside the amateur study, a professional

assessment of stream health was conducted in accordance with the Victorian EPA

Guidelines for „Environmental Management: Rapid Bioassessment Methodology for

Rivers and Streams‟ (2003) and the results compared. The concurrent sampling took place

in September-November 2009, with the volunteers and professionals collecting samples

within one month of each other. The participants in the study were grade 7 students from

a local high school, aged between 11 and 13 years old. They had no previous experience

in water monitoring, and only minimal training was provided prior to sampling. Training

was limited to only one classroom session where river ecology theory was taught, in

addition to a brief introduction on site.

As mentioned earlier, organisers of volunteer monitoring programs commonly

experience a classic tension of whether to devote resources to collecting quality data or

encourage broad participation and maximise the education value for participants.

Considering that this program was run in a school and the age of participants, the

monitoring protocol was designed to maximise the learning outcomes for students. There

was still an emphasis on collecting quality data, however, the primary goal was increasing

the students‟ awareness and knowledge of the impacts of river pollution.

Study Site

The study was conducted in a second order stream in Taman T.A.R in Ampang,

Selangor, Malaysia. The climate in the region is characterized as humid tropical, with the

highest rainfall experienced in October and November. The monthly average precipitation

was 222.35mm and the average air temperature ranged from 23.2 to 32°C for the months

of the study (World Meteorological Organisation 2010). The stream originates from

Hutun Rizab Ampang (Ampang Forest Reserve), one of the last remaining patches of

37

pristine forest surrounding Kuala Lumpur, and discharges into Sg. Klang. Three sample

sites were chosen to represent a gradient of human influence and disturbance. The

experimental stretch of stream starts in pristine tropical forest, then flows into a residential

area where it receives heavy inputs of storm water from the surrounding houses and

adjoining Kelab Darul Ehsan Golf Course Club. Each sample reach was 20m in length

and the entire experimental stretch was approximately 1km. The sites were chosen based

on ease of accessibility for the school students, and to examine the ability of the amateur

study to assess stream health over a range of conditions.

Figure 4.1 Map of Malaysia

Figure 4.2 Map of Taman TAR

Site 3

(Polluted) Site 2

(Disturbed)

Site 1

(Pristine)

38

Table 4.1 Description of Sampling Sites

Site Photos Site Description

Study Site 1 (Pristine)

The first sample site (N03°10‟02.6” E101°46‟36.3”) was

located in secondary forest, shaded by a dense canopy

with a substrate consisting of a mixture of cobble, gravel

and sand. Although the site is frequently visited by

humans for recreational purposes, it remains largely

undisturbed.

Study Site 2 (Disturbed)

The third sample site (N03°09‟59.0” E111°48‟27.1”) is

located approximately 100m downstream and runs along

Jalan 1, Taman T.A.R. The site is concreted, heavily

channelized and there is a storm water drain flowing into

the stream and run-off from the adjoining road. There is

little riparian vegetation and minimal canopy cover.

Study Site 3 (Polluted)

The Polluted site (N03°09‟55.3” E101°45‟58.3”) is

located at the end of Jalan 1 (see map). The site is

channelized, and concreted, with multiple inputs from

surrounding houses and adjoining the Kelab Darul Ehsan

Golf Course Club. There is no riparian vegetation or

canopy cover, with the water surface exposed to sunlight

throughout the day. There was extensive grey algae

growth and a strong chemical smell on the days of

sampling. The algae were later identified in the laboratory

as Compsopogon, common nuisance algae found in

nutrient-rich, warmer waters.

39

Professional Sampling Protocol

Water Sampling

In situ readings for specific conductivity, air and water temperature, dissolved

oxygen and pH, were taken at each site as well as light intensity using a lux meter (Table

4.2). Readings were taken in different areas and at different depths, and the mean for each

site calculated. Water samples were collected from each site for measurement of

dissolved phosphorus, nitrate, sulphate and ammonia (measured as ammonical nitrogen)

later in laboratory. Collection, sampling and transport of water samples were conducted in

accordance with the latest Victorian EPA guidelines „Sampling and Analysis of Waters,

Wastewaters, Soils and Wastes‟ (2000). Laboratory analysis was conducted in accordance

with the American Public Health Association: Standard Methods for the Examination of

Water and wastewater, 19th

Edition (1995).

Table 4.2 Environmental parameters measured at each study site

Factors Units Measuring Instruments

Temperature oC pH-Cond-Salinity (model: WP-81, TPS)

Conductivity mS cm-1

pH-Cond-Salinity (model: WP-81, TPS)

Flow-rate ms-1 Flowatch® Air or Liquid Flow Measurement Instrument

Oxygen ppm Mettler-Toledo

Light Lux light meter (model: LX-103, Lutron)

pH pH pH-Cond-Salinity (model: WP-81, TPS)

40

Macroinvertebrate Sampling and Laboratory Analysis

Professional sampling was conducted in accordance with Victorian EPA

standard guidelines for „Environmental Management: Rapid Bioassessment Methodology

for Rivers and Streams‟ (2003). Sampling at each site consisted of 5 composite Surber net

samples (400cm2

in area, 250µm). Sample points were selected to represent the diversity

of habitats within the stream i.e. at each site a sample was taken from leaf litter, riffles,

and pools. For each individual subsample, the Surber net was held in one location and the

area immediately upstream was disturbed for 15 – 20s in a square area equal to the size of

the net frame (0.2 m2). Rocks were moved and rubbed on all sides by hand to remove any

attached organisms. Sampling equipment was cleaned in between samples to avoid cross-

contamination. Samples were preserved in 70% ethanol for later analysis in the

laboratory. All macroinvertebrates collected in the field were sorted from the debris using

a stereo microscope and identified to species (or lowest taxonomic level possible) using

keys from „Freshwater Invertebrates of the Malaysian Region‟ (Yule and Yong 2004).

School Sampling Protocol

The school methods were modelled after the Waterwatch program. The

guidelines are outlined in the „Waterwatch Australia National Technical Manual‟ (2003).

The similarity between this and other community monitoring protocols worldwide allows

the study‟s outcomes to have broad relevance. On each day of sampling 18-22 students

participated in the study. Students were split into groups of 6-8 and assigned one of the

sites to sample. Each group was supervised and guided by at least one facilitator. The

role of the facilitator was to guide the students in the sampling method and encourage all

the students to be involved in monitoring.

Water Sampling and Analysis

The students collected water data using a LaMotte Low Cost Monitoring Kit to

measure pH, dissolved oxygen, dissolved nitrate, dissolved phosphate (as orthophosphate)

and coliform bacteria. The monitoring kit was designed to be simple and easy-to-use,

specifically for the purposes of environmental education. A water sample of a given

amount is taken and a tablet is added, the colour then changes to indicate a range or value.

41

After using the water monitoring kits for the first day of monitoring, it was

clear that they were giving unreliable results. It is possible that the kits used were faulty,

and for this reason the school‟s water chemistry results were left out of the final analysis.

Macroinvertebrate Sampling and Classroom Analysis

Macroinvertebrates were sampled using a triangular dip net (250µm mesh

size). Students were given a demonstration on the best sampling methods and encouraged

to find as many invertebrates as possible in 20-30mins. Each group of 6-8 students were

assigned 3 nets. Riffle habitats were sampled by holding the net downstream as the

operator disturbed the substratum by kick directly in front of the net opening. Rocks were

moved and rubbed on all sides by hand to remove all attached organisms. Stream edge

habitats were sampled by vigorously sweeping along the stream margins disturbing

bottom and bank substratum in areas of little flow. A different section of stream was

selected for each sample to avoid depletion effects caused by reworking the same area.

The contents of each sample were then transferred to a large sorting tray and students

„live-sorted‟ the invertebrates from the debris which were then preserved in 70% ethanol.

In a series of classroom sessions, students identified macroinvertebrates to order under a

stereomicroscope, with the aid of simple pictorial reference keys. Students were given

assistance in stream invertebrate identification by facilitators, and their samples were

checked for correctness before being recorded.

Participant Questionnaire

To investigate the effectiveness of river monitoring as a tool towards

increasing community knowledge and awareness on river pollution issues, participants

filled out a questionnaire on their experiences. Participants were asked to rate their

knowledge and understanding before and after the school monitoring program and to

suggest any possible improvements in the study which would make it more engaging

(Appendix I).

42

Data Analysis

The purpose of the study was to assess the accuracy and precision of volunteer

collected samples, by comparing them with professional samples, assuming the

professional samples yielded the correct results. To assess the correctness of the

professionally collected samples they were compared for differences between sites using

analysis of variance (ANOVA). Any significant observations at alpha = 0.05 were tested

post-hoc using Tukey‟s pairwise comparisons. Statistical analyses were performed using

SPSS (version 16) statistical analysis software.

As the school sampling was qualitative and lacked replication, the school‟s

data could not be compared to professional data using quantitative statistical methods.

Therefore, to compare professional and school assessments, a number of common

biological metrics were used to calculate stream health for both sets of data (Table 4.3).

The data were then graphed and the school results compared to professional to see if they

observed the same trends.

43

Table 4.3 Biological metrics used to compare professional and school samples.

Metric Expected

response to

disturbance

Description

Taxa Richness Decrease Biodiversity of stream declines as flow regimes are

altered, habitat is lost, chemicals are introduced,

energy cycles are disrupted, and alien taxa invade.

EPT

Abundance

Decrease EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera)

represent the three most sensitive orders to pollution

and are commonly used as bioindicators. EPT count

refers to the number of individuals

Beck’s Biotic

Index (BBI)

Decrease Invertebrates are classified into categories depending

on their response to organic pollution and a score is

given

Degree of

Dominance

Increase The proportion of the total individuals which fall in the

three most abundant taxa. As diversity declines, a few

taxa come to dominate the community assemblage. A

few opportunistic species that can tolerate modified

conditions replace more specialized types

% Tolerant

Taxa

Increase Species which are least sensitive to degradation tend

to thrive competitively as disturbance pressure builds

Pollution

Class

Distribution

Change to

community

dominated by

tolerant species

Taxa are ranked by their sensitivity to pollution and

the distribution across samples is assessed

44

The Beck‟s biotic index is a commonly used biotic index in river monitoring and

was first developed for the management of rivers in Florida, the United States. The index

is based on genus-level identification and was modified to include order-level

identification for the school study. Invertebrates are classified into three different

categories depending on their response to pollution (Table 4.4). Scores are then calculated

by the following equation:

Beck‟s Biotic Index Score = 2(n Class I) + (n Class II)

Where n = number of taxa in a certain pollution class

The Beck‟s biotic index was used because it is appropriate for school-aged children and

non-professionals, it is easy to use and understand, and easily modified based on the level

of taxonomic resolution used.

Table 4.4 Classification of invertebrates based on pollution sensitivity.

Class I – Pollution

Sensitive

Class II – Moderately

Tolerant

Class III - Tolerant

Ephemeroptera Odonata Oligochaete

Plecoptera Hemiptera Nematode

Trichoptera Megaloptera Hirudinea

Coleoptera Lepidoptera Gastropod

Decapoda, Brachyura Coleoptera Adult Diptera

Decapoda, Caridea

45

Results

Environmental Parameters

Water chemistry readings differed slightly between pristine and disturbed sites

however, were significantly different at the Polluted site. The polluted sight had

considerably low dissolved oxygen and high conductivity. The level of dissolved

nutrients also increased at the polluted site, especially sulphate (Table 4.5). Physical

characteristics differed markedly between sites. Riparian tree species richness, leaf litter

abundance and % canopy cover all decreased from pristine to polluted sites (Table 4.5).

Table 4.5 Chemical and physical characteristics of selected sites along Sungai Ampang.

Pristine Disturbed Polluted

Altitude (m) 104m 89m 79m

Air temperature (⁰C) 25.8 a

27.3 b

30.4 c

Water surface temp (⁰C) 26.1 a

27.2 a

29.9 b

Light (lux) 350 - 642 84600 - 12230 70000 - 84000

pH 7.51 a

5.92 b

6.68 c

Conductivity (µS) 25.19 a

35.80 b

359.00 b

Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 9.75 a

9.20 a

2.10 b

Sulphate (mg/L) 0.80 0.60 3.70

Nitrate as N (mg/L) 0.77 <0.01 0.69

Phosphate (mg/L) 0.09 0.12 0.37

Ammonical Nitrogen (mg/L) <0.01 <0.01 0.41

Riparian tree species richness 35.4 12.3 5.80

Leaf litter abundance 45.8 17.6 7

% Canopy cover 60 15 0

*% Canopy cover = % of riparian canopy directly over stream. Leaf litter abundance = average number of

leaves found in each leaf pack sample. Air and water temperature, pH, Conductivity and dissolved oxygen

were compared using ANOVA. Any two values sharing a common lower-case letter are not significantly

different (ANOVA & Tukey‟s pairwise comparisons at α = 0.05).

46

Invertebrate Monitoring

In total 3358 invertebrates covering 77 species and 14 orders, were collected from

all three sites in Sg. Ampang during the professional study (Table 4.6). In comparison, the

school study collected 383 invertebrates belonging to 10 orders. Diptera was the most

abundant invertebrate group in professional samples, whereas, school samples were

dominated by Gastropoda and Decapoda.

Table 4.6 Summary of invertebrate monitoring results

Professional Monitoring School Monitoring

Diptera 1363 15

Ephemeroptera 488 31

Trichoptera 264 15

Gastropod 371 183

Hirudinea 270 0

Oligochaeta 235 0

Coleoptera 118 7

Odonata 90 25

Plecoptera 11 4

Decapoda 5 91

Hemiptera 5 9

Arachnida 3 0

Lepidoptera 2 3

Nematoda 2 0

Total 3358 383

47

Biological Metrics

Professional monitoring data was analysed using Tuckey‟s pairwise comparison to

analyse different biological metrics, and their ability to distinguish between the three sites.

Species richness, EPT abundance and Beck‟s biotic index found a significant difference

between sites (Table 3).

Table 4.7 Variation of invertebrate communities between sites in professional monitoring

were tested using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Significant differences (p<0.05) are

shown in bold.

Dependant variable

df F p

A. Variation between sites

Species richness 2, 12 6.899 0.010

EPT abundance 2, 12 17.569 0.000

Degree of dominance 2, 12 5.946 0.160

% Tolerant taxa 2, 12 3.090 0.083

Beck‟s biotic index 2, 12 14.336 0.001

48

Species Richness

Professional monitoring showed that species richness did not significantly differ

between pristine and disturbed sites, but there was significantly less species present at the

polluted site (Figure 4.3A). School monitoring results observe the same pattern as

professional monitoring (species richness decreasing from pristine to polluted sites).

Figure 4.3 A – Mean species richness per 20cm2 of professional monitoring (± 1 SE, n =

10). Any two values sharing a common lower-case letter are not significantly different

(ANOVA & Tukey‟s pairwise comparisons at α = 0.05). B – Total taxa richness of school

monitoring per site.

49

EPT Abundance

Professional monitoring showed a significant difference between EPT abundances

at all three sites. The pristine sight had a high abundance, a small presence was found at

the disturbed site, and none were found at the disturbed site (Figure 4.4A). School

monitoring only found EPT taxa present at the pristine site (Figure 4.4B).

Figure 4.4 A – Mean EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera) abundance per

20cm2 area of professional monitoring (± 1 SE, n = 10). Any two values sharing a

common lower-case letter are not significantly different (ANOVA & Tukey‟s pairwise

comparisons at α = 0.05). B – Total EPT abundance per site of school monitoring.

50

Degree of Dominance

The disturbed and polluted sites had the highest degree of dominance, meaning

that the macroinvertebrate community present is dominated by three particular species

which are more tolerant (Figure 4.5). School monitoring compares favourably with

professional results, showing the same trend: degree of dominance increasing from the

pristine to polluted sites.

Figure 4.5 A – Mean degree of dominance (proportion of three most abundant taxa

species/ 20cm2) of professional monitoring. Any two values sharing a common lower-

case letter are not significantly different (ANOVA & Tukey‟s pairwise comparisons at α =

0.05). B – Degree of dominance of school monitoring.

51

Proportion of Tolerant Taxa

Professional results showed the disturbed and polluted sites recording a

significantly higher proportion of tolerant taxa than the pristine sight (Figure 4.6A). The

school monitoring showed the same trend as professional; but the school monitoring found

a significantly smaller proportion of tolerant taxa at the disturbed site (Figure 4.6B).

Figure 4.6 A – Mean proportion of tolerant tax per 20cm2

area of professional monitoring.

Any two values sharing a common lower-case letter are not significantly different

(ANOVA & Tukey‟s pairwise comparisons at α = 0.05). B – Proportion of tolerant taxa

per site of school monitoring.

52

Beck‟s Biotic Index

The Beck‟s biotic index decreased significantly from the pristine site to the

polluted (Figure 4.7). School monitoring results correlate very strongly with professional

monitoring (Figure 4.7B).

Figure 4.7 A – Mean Beck‟s biotic index score per 20cm2 of professional monitoring.

Any two values sharing a common lower-case letter are not significantly different

(ANOVA & Tukey‟s pairwise comparisons at α = 0.05). B – Beck‟s biotic index score per

site of school monitoring.

53

Pollution Class Distribution

Professional results show that the pristine sight is dominated by class I

invertebrates, the disturbed site dominated by class III invertebrates with a small number

of class I &II present, and the polluted site consisting of only class III invertebrates

(Figure 4.8). School results show the same trend as professional monitoring, however,

failed to collect any class III invertebrates at the pristine site.

Figure 4.8 Distribution of invertebrate pollution classes of A – professional monitoring

and B – school monitoring. Invertebrates were categorized into pollution categories based

on Beck‟s Biotic Index (Table 4.4).

54

Student Awareness and Understanding of River Issues

Student responses to the questionnaire, which was filled out after completing the

monitoring program, indicate that student awareness and understanding of river health and

pollution impacts has improved significantly. Over 90% of participants considered their

knowledge and awareness of river issues and river health to be either „good‟ or „very

good‟ after their involvement in the program (Figures 4.9 & 4.10).

Figure 4.9 A – School students‟ awareness of river issues before the monitoring program

(average response: „Somewhat‟) B - awareness after completing the monitoring program

(average response: „Very Good‟)

55

Figure 4.10 A – School students‟ knowledge of rivers and river health before the

monitoring program (average response: „A Little‟) B - awareness after completing the

monitoring program (average response: ‟Good‟)

56

Discussion

Professional Monitoring

Professional results indicate that the health of Sg. Ampang deteriorates across a

gradient of human influence, and increasing urbanisation. The pristine site is very

healthy; dissolved oxygen was high, riparian vegetation is healthy and diverse (Table 4.2),

and biological sampling showed a diverse invertebrate community with high abundance of

EPT (Figure 4.4A) and high Beck‟s biotic index score (Figure 4.7A).

The disturbed site is highly modified with the stream becoming channelized for

drainage purposes and the substrate concreted. Water quality was still high, with water

chemistry readings similar to the pristine site (Table 4.1), high species richness (Figure

4.3A) and EPT presence (Figure 4.4A). However, the invertebrate community changes

dramatically from pristine to disturbed, with a sharp increase in tolerant invertebrates,

namely chironomids (Figure 4.6A), and decrease in sensitive EPT organisms (Figure

4.4A). This is due to the lack of habitat available for invertebrates such as cobbles,

boulders and leaf packs. Furthermore, the channelization and concreting of the stream bed

can increase the „flashiness‟ of flow as there are no bends and natural substrate to slow the

movement of water. These sorts of environments are commonly dominated by

Chironomidae as they have short life-cycles and can regenerate quickly after a large

„flushing event‟ (Koperski 2009). This demonstrates how monitoring water chemistry

alone is not sufficient to assess the ecological health of a stream.

The polluted site was extremely degraded with very low dissolved oxygen, high

conductivity and increased dissolved nutrients, especially sulphate (Table 4.5). The

invertebrate community was completely different from the disturbed site with only one

species in common; Simulium sp. The community was made up completely of tolerant

species (Figure 4.6A), dominated by Hirudinea (leeches) and Gastropoda (snails). Both

Hirudinea and Gastropoda have been used as bioindicators of heavy pollution in the

United States (McDonald et al. 1990), and some species could possibly be used as

bioindicators in Malaysian streams.

57

Comparing School and Professional Assessments

The major difference between the professional and school studies was the lack of

replication in the school‟s samples. Unfortunately this means that the school and

professional‟s data cannot be compared using quantitative statistical methods. Therefore,

assessments were compared using a number of biological metrics which are commonly

used in invertebrate monitoring.

The school study collected considerably fewer invertebrates than the professional

study. However, this does not invalidate the student‟s data. When the school data is

analysed using biological metrics, their data clearly shows the same trends observed in the

professional assessments. In particular, species richness (Figure 4.3) and Beck‟s biotic

index (Figure 4.7) successfully illustrated the effect of human disturbance. Comparative

results were similar to Reynoldson et al (1986), who compared high school collected data

with historical government data and found that although the school collected significantly

less invertebrates, the trends were similar in both studies. It also demonstrates the need to

use a range of metrics when determining stream health.

School results were effective in classifying the health of the pristine site and

detecting the gross pollution at the polluted site, but had trouble classifying the milder

disturbance at the disturbed site. School results show a sharp decrease in taxa richness

(Figure 4.3), a complete absence of EPT taxa (Figure 4.4B), and a very low Beck‟s biotic

index score. This would indicate low water quality and the presence of pollution. This

conclusion is different from professional monitoring, which found that water quality was

high, and that changes to the invertebrate community were a result of a highly modified

habitat. The small sample size and low level taxonomic resolution of invertebrate

identification meant that school samples lacked the detail required to make informed

conclusions.

The inability of school monitoring to classify subtle changes in stream health is not

restricted to this particular program. Brinkhurst (1993) stated that “simplified indices

often based on an assumption that groups (such as insect families) behave in a uniform

way, can only be applied to simple, obvious examples of gross disturbance”. In this case,

it was not the use of biological indices which affected the accuracy of school assessments,

58

as professional results used the same indices to assess stream health. Rather it was the

lack of representativeness of the school samples which affected the accuracy of their

assessments. Table 4.6 shows the significant difference between professional and

monitoring results. School sampling failed to collect a number of key taxa, and the

relative abundance of some taxa is considerably different. School monitoring had a

tendency to collect larger organisms such Decapoda (prawns and crabs) and Gastropoda

(snails), but failed to collect smaller organisms such as Diptera, which was the most

abundant invertebrate order in professional samples.

Sources of Inaccuracy

If volunteer monitoring is to become a reliable source of information on water

quality trends for decision-makers it is important to understand the sources of inaccuracy

and bias in each aspect of monitoring. As mentioned earlier, school samples yielded

significantly less macroinvertebrates than professional samples. This is primarily due to

the different methods used for collecting, sorting and identifying samples, as well as the

use of untrained monitors.

The Surber sampling method for collecting invertebrates has previously been

reported as yielding a higher abundance of individuals, and rarer taxa than kick-net

samples (Storey et al. 1991). Also, samples were collected by experienced biologists, who

can recognise areas in a stream where there is a large abundance of invertebrates. For the

majority of participants in the school program, this was their first experience monitoring

invertebrates. This can be overcome with increased training of participants before

sampling and greater supervision of inexperienced monitors when they are collecting

samples.

The differing method for sorting invertebrate specimens from debris was a major

source of differences in the two sets of results. Professional samples were preserved and

sorted in the laboratory with the aid of a microscope, whereas, school samples were sorted

using the live-sort method; live specimens are picked from the sample by eye, on site.

Obviously, sorting samples in the laboratory with the aid of a microscope will result in a

greater number of individuals, however it would be hoped that live-sort method would still

yield a representative sample. As has been reported in previous studies (Nichols 2006;

59

Nerbonne et al. 2008), the live-sort method can result in a bias towards larger organisms

and fast moving organisms, but those not fast enough to evade capture. This meant that

school samples failed to collect smaller organisms such as chironomids, which were

abundant in professional samples at the disturbed site, and ultimately influenced the final

assessment of the site.

A common issue in invertebrate monitoring is the establishment of appropriate

taxonomic levels. In this study, order-level identification was sufficient in detecting gross

pollution at the polluted site. Previous studies have shown that order-level identification

can be applied as an „early warning system‟ to identify gross changes in stream quality

(Bouchard et al. 2005). It has been hypothesized that there is a hierarchical response in

macroinvertebrate communities to increasing pollution. Species and genus will enable

detection of subtle impacts because species exhibit a wide range of ecological

characteristics and tolerances to a variety of disturbances. When family-level is applied,

these more subtle and specific impacts may be missed because the loss of species can be

masked by the replacement of more tolerant congeners (Jones 2008). The replacement of

taxonomic groups occurs in steps as stress increases. First the individual is affected, and

then the species, genus, family, etc. are removed from a community as levels of stress

increase (Jones 2008). As resolution becomes coarser, the ability to detect impact

decreases to the point where only gross pollution can be identified (Metzeling et al. 2002).

Therefore, species or genus-level identification should be the goal of any professional

biological monitoring program. Species-level identification can be very time consuming

and requires special knowledge and would not be a realistic goal for volunteer programs,

unless participants were very experienced and highly trained. Marshall et al (2006)

conducted a cost/benefit analysis on different levels of taxonomic identifications. Cost

was measured as the amount of skill, effort and time required to process samples, and

plotted against benefit which was measured in terms of the percentage of the pattern

between samples that was retained in each data set. The study recommended family level

as the best resolution for analysing patterns in macroinvertebrate assemblages, as subtle

changes can still detected for significantly less cost than species or genus (Marshall et al.

2006).

60

Shortfalls of Chemical Monitoring

It was mentioned earlier that school monitoring undertook water chemistry tests

using a LaMotte Low Cost Water Monitoring Kit. However, the results were unreliable,

possibly due to faulty kits, and excluded from the final analysis. In the absence of

professional chemical analyses, the erroneous results may not have been detected. This

highlights the shortfalls of chemical analyses in community monitoring; obtaining reliable

data requires expensive equipment which is beyond the means of most community

monitoring projects. Although chemical analyses can identify contaminants that may be

present (as long as they are analysed for), biological monitoring can integrate responses to

combinations of all contaminants and to other sources of environmental stress, thereby

indicating overall effects in a water body (Bartram et al. 1996). Biological monitoring is

also important in situations where there are a range of contaminants whose biological

effects may be synergistic or antagonistic and would not be detected through chemical

measurements (Bartram et al. 1996).

A disadvantage of biological methods is that it can be difficult to relate observed effects to

specific aspects of environmental disturbance, such as contamination or natural changes.

For example, methods do not always provide precise information on the identity of a

contaminant unless supplementary information from chemical analyses is available. For

this reason, community biological monitoring can act as an „early warning system‟ to

identify the presence of pollution and the need for further intensive chemical analyses.

Participant Awareness and Knowledge

Surveying of participants found that knowledge and awareness of river health and

issues increased significantly. Average awareness of river issues and the impacts of

pollution increased from „somewhat‟ to „very good‟ (Figure 4.9), and knowledge of river

eco-systems increased from „a little‟ to „good‟ (Figure 4.10). This demonstrates the

educational value of environmental monitoring. Monitoring allows participants to

understand local ecosystems firsthand and build a sense of appreciation and ownership

over the sites they monitor.

61

Modifications to Improve Monitoring Program

Analyses of school monitoring results show the program was able to detect

degradation as a result of gross pollution but struggled to classify milder disturbance. This

program was run and organised to maximise the learning outcomes for students, and this is

used as a starting point for comparisons with professional results. Upon analysis of

results, modifications to the protocols can be made to improve accuracy and detail of

results, without compromising the education value.

One of the major shortcomings of the school monitoring program was the lack of

replication of samples. This meant that data could not be analysed statistically, leaving

only qualitative descriptions. Having a minimum of three replicate samples per site will

allow for more detailed analysis, statistical comparisons with reference sites, and ensure

sampling is representative. Validating volunteer collected data through standard statistical

methods will ensure the reliability of monitoring results as a source for decision-makers.

The live-sort method resulted in significantly less individuals than professionals,

and also a bias towards larger organisms. This can be overcome by stressing to volunteers

the importance of picking all specimens from the sample, and by making sure there are

enough resources such as tweezers and sorting trays for all participants. Having the

volunteers work in teams so that they can check the quality of each other‟s samples can

provide an important safeguard against such biases.

Order-level identification of invertebrates was successful in detecting gross

pollution, although it lacked the level of detail required to detect more subtle forms of

disturbance. Where possible, invertebrates should be identified to family so that subtle

changes to macroinvertebrate assemblages can be detected, as well as rare and threatened

taxa. This will still be a challenge in Malaysia as there is little known on the

macroinvertebrate fauna of the region. To achieve this there needs to be continued

improvements in taxonomic keys and tools including more research into the pollution

ecology of all macroinvertebrate taxa. These improvements can only come through

continuing investigations into the life history of individual species and integrating this

knowledge with applied aspects of biological monitoring. Moreover, there is a need for

the identification of reliable bioindicators, which can not only detect the presence or

62

absence of pollution, but can be diagnostic (indicate type of pollution). If monitoring can

have a diagnostic capability, it can be of great use for management and decision-making.

Conclusion

Macroinvertebrate monitoring provides a great learning opportunity for schools in

Malaysia, and has the ability to increase community knowledge and awareness of river

pollution impacts. Although professional monitoring is able to capture much more detail,

the purpose of biological monitoring is not to describe the macroinvertebrate community,

but to identify potential impacts or differences from the reference condition. School

monitoring was able to detect gross examples of disturbance, but struggled to classify

milder forms of disturbance. In order to improve the accuracy and precision of school

assessments, modifications to the protocol need to be made to allow standard data

validation methods. In addition, increased training and supervision of inexperienced

monitors will decrease the amount of volunteer bias.

63

Chapter 5 – Community Management and Monitoring

of Kelana Jaya Lakes

Introduction

This chapter describes the community approach to the restoration of Kelana Jaya

Lakes. The program was initiated by Global Environment Centre (GEC) in 2002 as a

response to rising levels of pollution in the lake system. GEC is a Malaysian-based

environmental NGO which promotes community participation in natural resource

management. Information was compiled from semi-structured interviews with program

co-ordinators, various newspaper articles and GEC publications.

Kelana Jaya Lake

Malaysia has very few natural lakes but past tin-mining activities and construction

of water reservoirs have created many man-made lakes and ponds. Jurisdiction for lakes

and pond management is not clear, and in most cases, these lakes are under the

responsibility of local authorities and private land-owners. As such, priority towards

maintaining good water quality in lakes and ponds was not realised until the water crisis

which hit Kuala Lumpur in 1997 (Chin 2001). Although water from lakes and ponds

could provide ample supply of non-potable water, it is generally heavily polluted. Ex-

mining ponds and lakes mainly serve as flood retention areas, developed for recreational

uses or reclaimed for other developments (Chin 2001).

The Kelana Jaya Lake is one of many urban lakes in Selangor, Malaysia. Kelana

Jaya Lakes are ex-mining ponds in the Sungai Damansara River Basin managed by the

Local Government, the Petaling Jaya City Council (MPPJ). They were initially managed

solely as flood retention areas until they were developed as a public park in 1996. The

lakes (4 in total) are still functioning as a flood retention basin, but form an important

feature of the Kelana Jaya Municipal Park and are a favourite spot for locals for

recreation, fishing and bird watching.

64

Pollution Problems

Shortly after the lake was opened up to the public in 1996, a gradual decline in the

water quality was observed. The main cause was increased wastewater, rubbish and

sewage overflows draining into the lakes from the storm water drainage system, as a result

of the rapid development in the surrounding catchment areas. The Petaling Jaya district

went from being a satellite township of Kuala Lumpur in the 1990s, to being granted city

status in 2006. The area is expanding as a centre for industrial and housing development,

with over 500,000 residents in a 51km2 area (Osman et al. 2008). To deal with the rapid

population growth a sewage treatment facility was built directly adjacent the lakes.

Unfortunately, poor planning and design resulted in the continuous overflow of untreated

sewage from the oxidation ponds into the lakes. The ponds could not cope with the load

from 6,000 households, as it was built with a capacity for 4,000 families (Chew 2003).

The loss of natural wetland plants in and surrounding the lakes has also completely

changed the ecosystem. They were replaced with rock, concrete and landscaping plants

during the park‟s development in 1996. The park was once a haven for water birds such

as the Waterhen (Ruak-Ruak) and native fish species which drew local anglers. However,

habitat loss and high pollution loads quickly degraded the biodiversity of the area. Water

birds became scarce and fish populations were dominated by more tolerant, non-

indigenous species such as Tilapia and Flower Horns (Mohkeri 2004). Water hyacinth

(Eichornia crassipes), an invasive aquatic weed, dominated the surface of the lakes and

high nutrient inputs resulted in increased algae growth and the lake becoming eutrophic

(Mohkeri 2002).

A university study found that the lake was polluted with heavy metals, including

high levels of cadmium, originating from nearby electroplating and car industries (Yap et

al. 2003). According to Department of Environment standards, the water is classified as

„class V‟, meaning that it is very polluted, unhealthy and not even suitable for human

contact (Yap et al. 2003). A separate study found high concentrations of cadmium in fish

species which were regularly caught and eaten by locals (Ismail et al. 2004).

65

Management

The pollution problems were partly caused by fragmented management of the

lakes and the surrounding catchment areas among different agencies, as well as a lack of

awareness and participation of the local community and other stakeholders. The Petaling

Jaya Municipal Council (MPPJ) lacked the human resources or technical expertise on lake

management and restoration. The sewage oxidation pond located next to the park is

managed by Indah Water Konsortium, the company entrusted with dealing with the

nation‟s sewage, since the privatization of sewage services in 1994. The adjacent sewage

pond was not properly maintained due to management constraints and could not cope with

the sewage load from surrounding houses. Aware of the problem, Indah Water had

difficulties with local authorities acquiring land and permits to build another storage pond

(Chew 2003). The flood drainage system, which is managed by Alam Flora Sdn Bhd, a

private company contracted by the local authorities to maintain the drainage systems, was

carrying untreated sewage and wastewater from surrounding housing and commercial

areas. With such an array of stakeholders involved in the park‟s management, assigning

responsibility and co-ordinating management interventions was very difficult.

Project

With pollution rising in the lake to levels which threatened public health and local

authorities proclaiming a shortage of resources to restore the lake, frustration grew within

the local community over the lack of action. In 2002, Global Environment Centre (GEC)

spearheaded a rehabilitation program aimed at improving water quality through promotion

of Integrated Water Resource Management, with a special emphasis on community

involvement. The project was run in collaboration with the MPPJ along with input from

Danish NGO-DANIDA, and funded by a grant from the Global Environment Facility

(GEF) (Mohkeri 2004).

Planning and Design

Consultation with various key stakeholders from both federal and state government

agencies was undertaken for 18 months prior to project development. Getting support

from the local authority was essential to the implementation of the project and United

Nations Local Agenda 21 (LA21) provided the platform for the involvement of the MPPJ.

66

LA21 is based on the global action plan towards development in the 21st century resulting

from the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992. LA21 was first introduced

in Malaysia in 2000 as a pilot program involving four local councils around the country,

including Petaling Jaya (Osman et al. 2008). The adopted program aims to:

(i) balance economic, community and environmental interests and

considerations into projects, processes and strategies;

(ii) fully engage a wide variety of stakeholders‟ groups to get a range of views

and interests, particularly those who will benefit from or be affected by the

outcome of the planning process; and

(iii) create mechanisms and strategies that can be maintained over the long term

to address various issues in an in-depth and sustained matter (Osman et al.

2008).

To implement the program a Local Agenda 21 Petaling Jaya Committee was set up

with the Mayor of MPPJ as the chairperson. The Committee consists of 37 members,

comprising of representatives from NGOs, community-building organisations, religious

institutions, the private sector, government agencies, and the MPPJ. Having the project

run as a LA21 initiative was of great benefit as the LA21 Committee is chaired by the

mayor and allowed for linkages with other key stakeholders: residents associations,

education department etc.

During the project planning phase, the local community was informed of the

project, and provided opportunity to give their input and feedback through the use of a

feedback form, workshops and dialogues. Approximately 500 brochures and

questionnaires were disseminated amongst community centres, schools and housing areas

over the period of one month. The community were asked on their needs and concerns

with regard to the water quality of the Kelana Jaya Lake ecosystem, as well as their

interest in participating in environmental monitoring and rehabilitation activates. As a

result the Friends of Kelana Jaya Park (FoKJ) was established with over 400 members. A

project steering committee of 15 was set up to represent the local community and special

interest groups such as anglers and birdwatchers.

67

Through consultation with the various stakeholders and local community, the

project objectives were set as follows: The project aims at promoting sustainable

management of Kelana Jaya Lakes through the participation of stakeholders, especially the

local community. It focuses on:

1. Enhancing awareness and understanding of IWRM among key stakeholders.

2. Strengthening community groups including NGOs, the private sector and special

interest groups, and promoting more active participation in lake management.

3. Establishing partnerships between community groups and government agencies for

information sharing and joint activities.

4. Help improve water quality and the status of biodiversity at Kelana Jaya Lakes

(Kailasam 2009).

The rehabilitation program of Kelana Jaya Lakes was formally launched during a

local community carnival on October 2002. The launching event and promotion through

the media assisted the project team in developing awareness on the project among the

local communities.

Community Monitoring and Evaluation

An important aspect of the program is the local community‟s ability to conduct

their own health assessments of the lakes. From 2005, GEC offered volunteers from the

FoKJ, one day courses on water quality monitoring to become „park rangers‟. The course

consists of classroom theory sessions on freshwater ecosystems, and introduces them to

the concept of IWRM. Volunteers are then taken to different river sites and the lake to

conduct physical, chemical and biological monitoring. Physical monitoring involves

volunteers “using their senses” to assess the overall health of the lake. Visual

observations are taken of the clarity and colour of the water, the amount of rubbish within

and surrounding the lakes, and the quality of vegetation along the shoreline. Biological

monitoring involves recording any sightings of vertebrate animal life such as birds,

reptiles or fish. Invertebrate samples are taken using a small fish net. Invertebrate

abundance and taxa richness are recorded as an indicator of ecosystem health, though

invertebrates are not identified. Chemical testing is carried out using a Lamotte low cost

68

water monitoring kit. The monitoring kit was designed to be simple and easy-to-use,

specifically for the purposes of environmental education. A water sample of a given

amount is taken and a tablet is added, the colour then changes to indicate a range or value.

The parameters measured are:

Temperature

pH,

Dissolved oxygen,

Nitrogen

Phosphate

Turbidity

E.coli

All results are recorded into a rubric entitled the „Lake Report Card‟, and a score

for each monitoring type (physical, biological and chemical) is calculated, then those

scores are added up to give the overall score for lake health (Appendix II). After

completing the course, the rangers are presented with their own test kit as well as a

certificate of completion of the course. The volunteers agree upon a schedule so that the

lake is monitored at least once a month. After they collect the data they send a short

summary to GEC which is then uploaded on the website. Monitoring results are also

displayed in the information kiosk located in the middle of the park. .

GEC concede that the volunteer monitoring is not scientifically accurate and

lacks the precision and depth of professional monitoring. However, the result does give a

qualitative description of the health of the lakes and has the ability to track changes over

time. The primary focus of the monitoring program is to provide the community with a

means to be involved in the evaluation and decision-making process. The data collected

by monitors can help inform management at the planning and policy stage, and can also be

used to critique management by providing data on the progress or success of a given

management intervention. The course is also designed to enhance the awareness and

knowledge of participants, to encourage a move towards more sustainable behaviours and

attitudes. For example, the importance of not pouring oils and chemicals down the drains

is emphasised. It is hoped that by learning about their environment, local monitors share

the knowledge they gather with other members of the community, as one of the

participants stated upon the completion of the course:

69

“The environment is ours to protect. We can use what we learned

today to protect our waterways and also bring our families for picnics

at the lake so they too will learn about nature and its importance.”

(Jayaraj 2005)

Having local residents trained to recognize indications of pollution and

degradation allows them to act as “the eyes and ears” of the lake, providing an

early warning system to pollution events.

Achievements

The project was successful in engaging local residents with the issue and was able

to establish the FoKJ with over 400 members and a steering committee of 15 people. By

establishing a local community group who are genuinely concerned about the management

of the part and lake, it was easier to mobilise the community to participate in the

management of the park. It also means that the local authority has a more regular source

of information for whatever issues are happening on the ground, and can make use of the

community local action. MPPJ also provides facilities for FoKJ to hold regular monthly

meetings at one of the city buildings adjacent to the park.

There are also other opportunities for the wider public to get involved in the

project. A hotline for the public to raise their concerns has been established to allow two-

way communication with the local authority. A website has been set up

(www.kelanajayapark.com) to provide an avenue for disseminating information on the

project activities, events, and results from park ranger monitoring are also uploaded.

There is also a community booth and notice boards in the park where information and

monitoring results are displayed.

The rehabilitation program and associated events have garnered a lot of publicity

in local media. There have been a number of community planting days where volunteers

replanted natural vegetation around the lake to bring back wildlife. The Malaysian

Anglers Association helped organise an alien fishing competition in a bid to remove non-

indigenous fish species. GEC held an event called „My Drains Day‟, where volunteers

and members from the residents association cleaned rubbish and silt from drains and

marked drains with a fish symbol to remind residents that the drains lead to the lake. The

70

„gotong-royong‟ (village clean-up) of the drains was targeted in three particular housing

areas which were identified as contributing the highest amount of pollution through their

wastewater, and events were held in each area in three consecutive weeks. All these

events were widely reported by the local newspapers and television networks, and gave

good publicity to the importance of the lakes and the rehabilitation efforts.

Perhaps the biggest achievement of the program was the upgrade of the adjacent

sewage treatment plant so that untreated sewage no longer overflowed into the lake and

effluent bypassed the lake and was discharged further downstream. Without the pollution

load coming from the sewage plant, and reduced wastewater and solid waste, total

incoming pollution reduced by over 60% (Mohkeri 2002). This demonstrates the

effectiveness of community participation in influencing the decision-making process.

Finally, the program demonstrated the successful implementation of IWRM.

Community participation was established as an essential component to management of the

lakes and strong relationships and communication lines were built between all relevant

stakeholders. There was a new emphasis on controlling pollution at the source by

encouraging sustainable behaviours in surrounding households, rather than finding

treatment solutions for the lake. Management had shifted from a top-down, closed-

sectoral driven, to more transparent, co-operative management bodies.

Challenges and Lessons Learned

A key component of the Kelana Jaya Park program and many of GEC‟s projects is

the concept of „civic science‟, which is a way of approaching community participation in

environmental management. The concept is new in Malaysia and can be summarised by

the graphic below;

Figure 5.1 Civic science approach to community engagement (Kailasam 2009; p 6)

The concept builds on a four step process designed to engage the local community and

gain their support for action;

71

1. Create awareness on the issues surrounding that particular community/location.

2. Provide knowledge to the community on the facts, statistics and the role they play

as the cause and receiver of pollution and impacts.

3. Provide skill on how to monitor and manage resources effectively.

4. Assist the community in taking action to improve their local environment.

Overall it is a systematic approach for integrating the local community within natural

resource management and can be applied to a wide variety of environmental issues.

Gaining Community Support

Experience in this project and others have shown that it is crucial to develop trust

and a feeling of ownership toward development and planning of project activities and

solutions. The initial task of community mobilization can be very challenging.

Environmental awareness and understanding is very low in Malaysia, as it is in many

developing countries, where economic considerations are given priority, and

environmental degradation is considered to be an inevitable consequence of economic

prosperity. Therefore, GEC utilise a „soft approach‟ to engage the community, based on

finding common ground, making a connection between the community and project

benefits (quality parks, better health etc) and slowly building trust within the community.

It is a long process and patience is needed to assure them of the importance and viability

of the project, and to build their capacity to achieve results. It is also important to include

the community at the very beginning of the planning process, before the development of

an action plan. Including the community‟s considerations and ideas in the design can

build a sense of ownership over the project. Gaining the community‟s trust and active

involvement is also essential in stimulating government commitment.

Sustaining and Nurturing Community Support

In most cases, community projects require a large amount of time to establish, and

sustaining community support can be a difficult challenge. Projects commonly fail when

the results fail to meet the expectations and the community becomes disengaged. To

avoid this, it is important not to set high goals that are difficult to achieve initially. By

72

completing small tasks properly and doing them well, it is possible to demonstrate the

success of the project to the community. It is important to recognise the efforts of the

community and publicise their achievements. For instance, FoKJ have been highlighted in

the local media several times over the past few years and this has motivated them to

continue their efforts.

Project managers need to understand and accept that there are limitations and

constraints to the amount of effort the community can devote to a project. Some members

may be retired, or working full-time, or have families to attend to. They are not able to

devote time regularly to the project or may have difficulty fitting in to the work plan.

They may not have the experience, therefore require constant guidance. It is important

that the needs of the community are not sidelined and their involvement isn‟t beyond their

capacity.

Projects should be run in a transparent manner, especially in regards to fund

allocation. It is important that the community is aware of where funds are being allocated;

otherwise mistrust can quickly build within the community.

Building Relationships between Stakeholders

GEC has managed to forge strong partnerships with government agencies by

having regular meetings and discussing proposed project actions together, understanding

each other‟s needs and limitations. The best way to ensure participation from government

agencies is to invite them to become project steering committee members. In this manner

they play an important role in contributing ideas and resources to the project.

During the Kelana Jaya Lakes program government agency representatives from

the Department of Environment, DID and local authorities regularly attended meetings

and training workshops on river management. Many of the government officers have

good technical and infrastructure knowledge, but at times can lack the skills and

understanding in managing environmental resources in a more natural and inclusive way,

as described in IWRM. By including government officials in the training workshops and

regular meetings, a two-way dialogue was created where the community can have direct

access to government agencies, and officials can gain an insight into what is required to

manage a resource more effectively which meet the needs of the community.

73

It is important that each stakeholder‟s responsibilities are clearly defined in order

to avoid overlapping of resources and ensuring accountability among all parties.

Moreover, it ensures that everyone feels involved and is contributing their part to the

success of the project.

Conclusion

Shortly after Kelana Jaya Lake Park was opened in 1996, there was a gradual

decline in water quality due to sewage overflow from the neighbouring treatment plant

and wastewater from surrounding housing areas. LA21 provided an essential platform for

the implementation of a community management program in 2002. An important feature

of the program was the opportunity for participants to conduct their own ecosystem health

assessments. This built a sense of ownership and responsibility among locals to reduce

their impacts and pressure authorities to restore the health of the lake. The project was

successful in establishing a local community group who were committed to restoring the

health of the lake, influencing local decision-making by having the neighbouring sewage

plant upgraded, and building strong relationships with all stakeholders involved in the

management of the lake and surrounding catchments.

74

Chapter 6 – Conclusions

This study used two lines of investigation to examine the potential of community

monitoring in Malaysia. A pilot community monitoring program was implemented in a

high school and the results compared to professional monitoring, to assess their accuracy

and precision. In addition, an established community monitoring program was analysed

and program managers interviewed on their views and experiences which affect the

widespread adoption of the practice.

Comparing the assessments of school monitoring to those made by professionals, it

was found that although students were able to detect gross examples of degradation, they

struggled to classify milder forms of disturbance. Increased training of volunteers and

modifications to the monitoring protocol to allow for data validation will increase the

accuracy and precision of their assessments.

The participatory approach utilised in the Kelana Jaya Lakes program, allowed for

the inclusion of the community‟s needs and concerns in the decision-making process. The

monitoring of the lakes‟ health by the local community gave them a sense of ownership

over the project and empowered them to become involved in the management of the lakes.

The results show that community monitoring has the ability to address a number of

the key objectives outlined in the Malaysian Water Vision (Lee and Facon 2001; p25).

The objectives are briefly discussed below:

a) Increased awareness on the economic, social and environmental value of water

among decision-makers and politicians and the public

The community monitoring of Kelana Jaya Lakes demonstrated to participants the

impacts of the surrounding housing areas on the health of the lake, and motivated them to

adopt more sustainable behaviour. In addition, students‟ awareness of river issues

increased significantly after their involvement in the monitoring program. Monitoring

exposes participants to local ecosystems, building both an understanding and appreciation

for natural areas.

75

b) Promotion of river education

The hands-on activities of environmental monitoring provide great learning

opportunities for both schools and the wider community and have the potential to be

adopted in schools across Malaysia.

c) Significant reduction of pollution from point and non-point sources; j) Resource

assessment and monitoring

The wide spread adoption of community monitoring will allow for more sites to be

monitored on a continuous basis. Monitoring data can be used to track long-term changes

in river health and can also be used as an „early warning system‟ of high pollution events.

d) Full restoration of rivers and return of aquatic life

Monitoring is crucial for assessing the effectiveness of restoration efforts, and

identifying why different restoration programs succeed or fail. The Kelana Jaya Lakes

program demonstrated the effectiveness of integrating community monitoring into

restoration programs, giving locals a sense of ownership over the project.

e) Water ecosystems protection

The use biological parameters by community monitors provides direct information

on the condition of groups of biota resident in the ecosystem, and therefore on the

condition of the ecosystem. Thus, they address management issues more directly and can

provide a more sensitive time-integrated assessment of river condition than physical or

chemical parameters.

f) Frequent dialogue with all stake holders in the water sector; g) Participatory

approach in decision-making

The Kelana Jaya Lakes program showed that by including the community in the

restoration and monitoring process, strong relationships can be built with the community

and local authorities. Monitoring data can be used to help inform decision making and

also stimulate government action. The increased interaction with the community can give

76

officials an insight into what is required to manage a resource more effectively which meet

the needs of the community.

Recommendations

Community monitoring should be adopted as a key management tool towards

achieving Malaysia‟s Water Vision. Schools are an ideal vehicle for community

monitoring, as it can be easily integrated into school curricula and offers a great

educational experience for children. LA21 provides a platform to involve the wider

community in environmental management, and community monitoring programs can be

used to enhance restoration efforts as have been prescribed in the Water Vision.

Monitoring data has the potential to inform management and planning, however,

decision-makers need to be aware of the limitations in the accuracy and precision of

volunteer assessments. To improve the accuracy of results, monitoring protocols should

include standard data validation techniques, and increased training and supervision of

inexperienced volunteers.

Biological monitoring in Malaysia is still in its infancy and greater research work

is required to understand the impact of pollution on the life-histories of benthic

macroinvertebrates, and identifying reliable bioindicator species.

Study Limitations

There are many forces in Malaysia which have not been included in the

considerations including political will, economics and constraints. To analyse the political

regime and how policies are agreed upon in Malaysia would be a whole research project

on its own. The recommendations put forward are based solely on the Malaysian Water

Vision goals and objectives and what needs to be done for them be achieved.

77

References

Abdul Rahman, Z. (2004). River Pollution Prevention and Water Quality Improvement

Program in Malaysia. River Restoration in East Asia, Kuala Lumpur Global

Environment Centre

Abdullah, R. (1995). Environmental pollution in Malaysia: trends and prospects. Trends

in Analytical Chemistry 14(5): 191-203.

Abidin, R. (2004). IWRM Implementation Realities in Malaysia. Malaysian Water Forum,

Economic Planning Unit. Kuala Lumpur.

Agrawal, A. and Gibson,C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of

community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27(4): 629-649.

Aini, M. S., A. Fakhru'l-Razi, L Rahim. (2001). Water Crisis Management: Satisfaction

Level, Effect and Coping of the Consumers. Water Resources Management 15(1):

31-39.

Andan, H. and H. Nordin (2001). Indicators of ecosystems health: a framework for

implementation in the Langat basin Langat Basin research symposium. M.

Ibrahim. Kuala Lumpur.

Andrianandrasana, H. T., J. Randriamahefasoa, L.,Durbinl. (2005). Participatory

ecological monitoring of the Alaotra wetlands in Madagascar. Biodiversity and

Conservation 14(11): 2757-2774.

APHA (1995). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.

American Public Health Association and American Water Works Association

Azrina, M. Z., C. K. Yap, F, .G Rahim. (2006). Anthropogenic impacts on the distribution

and biodiversity of benthic macroinvertebrates and water quality of the Langat

River, Peninsular Malaysia. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 64(3): 337-

347.

Batram, J. L, Ballance. (1996). Water Quality Monitoring - A practical guide to the

design and implementation of freshwater quality studies and monitoring

programmes. United Nations Environment Programme and World Health

Organisation.

Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen. (1996). A framework for biological criteria for Florida

streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American

Benthological Society 15(2): 185-211.

Becker, C. D., A. Agreda. (2005). Community-based monitoring of fog capture and

biodiversity at Loma Alta, Ecuador enhance social capital and institutional

cooperation. Biodiversity and Conservation 14(11): 2695-2707.

78

Bouchard, J., D. Huggins. (2005). A Review of the Issues Related to Taxanomic

Resolution in Biological Monitoring of Aquatic Eco-systems With Emphasis on

Macroinvertebrates. Kansas Biologiclal Survey Technical Report 133.

Brosius, J. P., A. L. Tsing, C, Zerner. (1998). Representing communities: Histories and

politics of community-based natural resource management. Society and Natural

Resources 11(2): 157-168.

Burgess, N. D., A. Balmford,. F, Danielsan. (2009). Local Participation in Natural

Resource Monitoring: a Characterization of Approaches. Conservation Biology

23(1): 31-42.

Campbell, L. A. Vainio-Mattila (2003). Participatory Development and Community-

Based Conservation: Opportunities Missed for Lessons Learned?" Human Ecology

31(3): 417-437.

Chessman, B. C. (1995). Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates: A

procedure based on habitat-specific sampling, family level identification and a

biotic index." Australian Journal of Ecology 20(1): 122-129.

Chew, H. (2003). Bringing life back to a recreational park. The Star Newspaper- 18 March

2003. Kuala Lumpur.

Chin, M. (2001). A Comparative Study on the Ecology of two tin mine lakes in Kelana

Jaya, Selangor. Monash University Malaysia, 3rd

year research project.

Cuthill, M. (2000). An Interpretive Approach to Developing Volunteer-based Coastal

Monitoring Programmes. Local Environment 5(2): 127 - 137.

Danielsen, F., N. D. Burgess, G,. Balmford. (2005). Monitoring matters: examining the

potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiversity and Conservation 14(11):

2507-2542.

Danielsen, F., A. E. Jensen, P., Aliova. (2005). Does monitoring matter? A quantitative

assessment of management decisions from locally-based monitoring of protected

areas. Biodiversity and Conservation 14(11): 2633-2652.

Danielsen, F., M. M. Mendoza. (2007). Increasing conservation management action by

involving local people in natural resource monitoring. Ambio 36(7): 566-570.

Department of Environment (2008). Environment Quality Report 2008. Ministry of

Science, Technology and Environment.

Devlin, M., J. Waterhouse, H, Brodie. (2001). Community and connectivity: Summary of

a community based monitoring program set up to assess the movement of nutrients

and sediments into the Great Barrier Reef during high flow events. Water Science

and Technology. 43: 121-131.

Dilley, M. (1991). Comparison of the results of a volunteer stream water quality

monitoring program and the Ohio EPA's biological indices School of Natural

Resources. Columbis, Ohio State University

79

Ellis, D. (1985). Taxonomic sufficiency in pollution assessment. Marine Pollution

Bulletin 16(12): 459.

Engel, S. R. and J. R. Voshell Jr (2002). Volunteer Biological Monitoring: Can It

Accurately Assess the Ecological Condition of Streams? American Entomologist

48: 164-177.

EPA Victoria (2003). Environmental Management. Rapid Bioassessment of Methodology

for Streams and Rivers. EPA Victoria, Melbourne.

EPA Victoria (2000). Sampling and Analysis of Waters, Wastewater and Soils. EPA

Victoia, Melbourne.

Ewert, A. W., Ed. (1996). Natural Resource Management: The Human Dimension.

Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press.

Firehock, K. and J. West (1995). A brief-history of volunteer biological water monitoring

using macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society

14(1): 197-202.

Fore, L. S, K. Paulsen, O'Laughlin. (2001). Assessing the performance of volunteers in

monitoring streams. Freshwater Biology 46(1): 109-123.

Gillies, C. L., G. C. Hose. (2009). What do qualitative rapid assessment collections of

macroinvertebrates represent? A comparison with extensive quantitative sampling.

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 149(1-4): 99-112.

Guijt, A., Saladores (1998). Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: Tracking Change

Together. IIED London(31): 28-36.

Harding, R. (1998). Environmental Decision-Making: The Role of Scientists, Engineers

and the Public. Sydney, Federation Press.

Hornig, C. E. and J. E. Pollard (1978). Macroinvertebrate sampling techniques for

streams in semi-arid regions. Comparison of Surber and Unit-effort Travelling

Kick Method. Envrionment Monitoring Service of the United States

Environmental Protection Angency. No 600/4-78-040.

Houston, L., M. T. Barbour, D, Lenat. D, Penrose. (2001). A multi-agency comparison of

aquatic macroinvertebrate-based stream bioassessment methodologies. Ecological

Indicators 1(4): 279-292.

Ismail, A., C. Yap, F, Chan. (2004). Concentrations of Cd, Cu and Zn in sediments

collected from urban lakes at Kelana Jaya, Peninsular Malaysia. Wetland Science

2(4): 248-258.

Jayaraj, J. (2005). Kits for residents to monitor lake pollution. Metro Newspaper. Kuala

Lumpur. 29 November: 4.

Jones, F. C. (2008). Taxonomic sufficiency: The influence of taxonomic resolution on

freshwater bioassessments using benthic macroinvertebrates. Environmental

Reviews 16: 45-69.

80

Kailasam, K. (2009). River basin initiative: Community participation in river

management. Journeys Taken, Lessons Learnt: Empowering malaysian

communities for conservation and sustainable resource use. S. Ramakrishna and A.

Teoh. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian Environmental NGO's (MENGO): 43-51.

Kapoor, I. (2001). Towards participatory environmental management? Journal of

Environmental Management 63(3): 269-279.

Kerans, B. L., J. R. Karr, R,. James. (1992). Aquatic Invertebrate Assemblages: Spatial

and Temporal Differences among Sampling Protocols. Journal of the North

American Benthological Society 11(4): 377-390.

Khalit, A. R. (2007). Current State of Water Environment Malaysia. Ministry of Natural

Resources. Kuala Lumpur.

Koperski, P. (2009). Reduced diversity and stability of chironomid assemblages

(Chironomidae, Diptera) as the effect of moderate stream degradation. Polish

Journal of Ecology 57(1): 125-138.

Lee, T. H. and T. Facon (2001). Malaysia's Water Vision: The Way Forward, From Vision

to Action. A Synthesis of National Water Vision South East Asia The FAO Pilot

Project on National Water Visions. Bangkok.

Maas, R. K., D. Gregutt, P (1991). Developing a rigorous water quality database through

a volunteer monitoring network. Lakes Reserve Management 7: 126-131.

Mackey, A. P., D. A. Cooling, F, H. Berrie. (1984). An evaluation of sampling strategies

for qualitative surveys of macro-invertebrates in rivers, using pond nets. Journal

of Applied Ecology 21(2): 515-534.

Madsen, L., M. E. Hansen, K, Reumert, F, H. Pedersen. (2003). Implementation of a

Water Vision. In the Case of Langat River, Malaysia. Department of Environment,

Technology and Social Studies. Denmark, Roskil de University: 150.

Marchant, R., R. H. Norris, L, Milligan. (2006). Evaluation and application of methods

for biological assessment of streams: Summary of papers. Hydrobiologia 572(1):

1-7.

Marshall, J. C., A. L. Steward. (2006). Taxonomic resolution and quantification of

freshwater macroinvertebrate samples from an Australian dryland river: The

benefits and costs of using species abundance data. Hydrobiologia 572(1): 171-

194.

McDonald, M., W. Borden. (1990). Citizen Stream Monitoring: A Manual for Illinois.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources and Energy, Springfield.

Mebane, C. A. (2001). Testing bioassessment metrics: Macroinvertebrate, sculpin, and

salmonid responses to stream habitat, sediment, and metals. Environmental

Monitoring and Assessment 67(3): 293-322.

Mellanby, K. (1974). A water pollution survey, mainly by British school children.

Environmental Pollution 6(3): 161-173.

81

Metzeling, L., D. Robinson. L, Perrisis. (2002). Temporal persistence of benthic

invertebrate communities in south-eastern Australian streams: Taxonomic

resolution and implications for the use ofpredictive models. Marine and

Freshwater Research 53(8): 1223-1234.

Mohkeri, S. (2002). Malaysia: Rehabilitation of lakes in Kelana Jaya Municipal Park

http://www.gwptoolbox.org/index.php?option=com_case&id=116&Itemid=46

Retrieved 02 December 2009.

Mohkeri, S. (2004). River Restoration in East Asia: Proceedings of the East Asia Regional

Seiminar on River Restoration. Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Kuala

Lumpur

Morse, J. C., Y. J. Bae, G Sangpradub, K., Tanida. T,S. Vshivkova. B, Wang, L, Yang. C.,

Yule .(2007). Freshwater biomonitoring with macroinvertebrates in East Asia.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(1): 33-42.

Muyibi, S., A. Ambali, G., Eissa. (2008). The Impact of Economic Development on Water

Pollution: Trends and Policy Actions in Malaysia. Water Resources Management

22(4): 485-508.

Nerbonne, J. F., B. Ward. (2008). Effect of sampling protocol and volunteer bias when

sampling for macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological

Society 27(3): 640-646.

Newall, P., N. Bate, L, Metzeling. (2006). A comparison of diatom and macroinvertebrate

classification of sites in the Kiewa River system, Australia. Hydrobiologia 572(1):

131-149.

Nichols, S. J. and R. H. Norris (2006). River condition assessment may depend on the

sub-sampling method: Field live-sort versus laboratory sub-sampling of

invertebrates for bioassessment. Hydrobiologia 572(1): 195-213.

Nicholson, E., J. Ryan, F,. Hodgkinson. (2002). Community Data- Where Does the

Confidence Lie? Assessing Confidence Limits of Commnity Collected Water

Quality Data. Water Science Technology 45(11): 193-200.

Osman, M., N. Syiad. (2008). Local Agenda 21 in Malaysia: Issues and problems faced by

stakeholders in the participation process. Ecocity World Summit 2008. Kuala

Lumpur, University of Putra Malaysia.

Penrose, D. and S. M. Call (1995). Volunteer monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates -

Regulartory biologists perspectives. Journal of the North American Benthological

Society 14(1): 203-209.

Poff, N. L. (1997). Landscape filters and species traits: Towards mechanistic

understanding and prediction in stream ecology. Journal of the North American

Benthological Society 16(2): 391-409.

82

Resh, V. H. and J. D. Unzicker (1975). Water quality monitoring and aquatic organisms:

the importance of species identification. Journal of the Water Pollution Control

Federation 47(1): 9-19.

Reynoldson, T., L. Hampel, J. Martin. (1986). Biomonitoring networks operated by

schoolchildren. Environmental Pollution Series A: Ecological and Biological

41(4): 363-380.

Sharpe, A. C. Conrad (2006). Community based ecological monitoring in Nova Scotia:

Challenges and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 113(1-

3): 395-409.

Sheil, D. (2001). Conservation and biodiversity monitoring in the tropics: Realities,

priorities, and distractions. Conservation Biology 15(4): 1179-1182.

Simpson, K. W., R. Bode, J, R. Colquhon. (1985). The macroinvertebrate fauna of an

acid-stressed headwater stream system in the Adirondack Mountains, New York.

Freshwater Biology 15(6): 671-681.

Storey, A. W., D. H. Edward, P, L. Gazey. (1991). Surber and kick sampling: a

comparison for the assessment of macroinvertebrate community structure in

streams of south-western Australia. Hydrobiologia 211(2): 111-121.

Tawake, J. P., P Radikedike, B Aalbersberg, V Vuki, N Salafsky, (2001). Harvesting

Clams and Data Involving local communities in monitoring can lead to

conservation success in all sorts of unanticipated ways: A case in Fiji.

Conservation in Practice 2(4): 32-35.

Thompson, D. (2004). A Review of Waterwatch Victoria Melbourne. Waterwatch Victoria

Ticheler, H. J., J. Kolding, L, Chandler. (1998). Participation of local fishermen in

scientific fisheries data collection: A case study from the Bangweulu Swamps,

Zambia. Fisheries Management and Ecology 5(1): 81-92.

Topp-Jorgensen, E., M. K. Poulsen, J, F. Lund, J,f. Massao (2004). Community-based

monitoring of natural resource use and forest quality in montane forests and

miombo woodlands of Tanzania, Denmark, Springer.

Torralba Burrial, A. and F. J. Ocharan (2007). Comparison between Surber and hand net

sampling methods to survey benthic macroinvertebrates in rivers of Aragon (NE

Iberian Peninsula). Limnetica 26(1): 13-24.

Van Rijsoort, J. and Z. Jinfeng (2005). Participatory resource monitoring as a means for

promoting social change in Yunnan, China. Biodiversity and Conservation 14(11):

2543-2573.

Waterwatch Australia. (2003). Waterwatch Australia National Technical Manual.

Environment Australia

83

Whitelaw, G., H. Vaughan, B,. Craid, D, Atkinson. (2003). Establishing the Canadian

community monitoring network. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 88(1-

3): 409-418.

Wu, T. Y. and A. W. Mohammad. (2009). A holistic approach to managing palm oil mill

effluent (POME): Biotechnological advances in the sustainable reuse of POME.

Biotechnology Advances 27(1): 40-52.

Yap, C., A. Ismail, P, Chiu. (2003). Water quality and dissolved heavy metal

concentrations in surface water collected from Kelana Jaya Lakes. Asian Journal of

Water, Environment and Pollution 4(1): 187 - 190.

Yule, C.M and H.S. Yong (2004). Freshwater invertebrates of the Malaysian region.

Kuala Lumpur, Akadmi Sains Malaysia.

Zakaria, S. and Z. Selamat (2003). Water Resources Management in Malaysia.

Department of Irrigation and Drainage. Kuala Lumpur, Corporate Development

Division.

84

Appendix I – Student Questionnaire

Adopt-a-Stream Questionnaire

How would you rate your knowledge of rivers and river health before the adopt-a-stream

program?

1

None

2

Very Little

3

Somewhat

4

Good

5

Very Good

How would you rate your knowledge of rivers and river health after the adopt-a-stream

program?

1

None

2

Very Little

3

Somewhat

4

Good

5

Very Good

How would you rate your awareness of river issues before the adopt-a-stream program?

1

None

2

Very Little

3

Somewhat

4

Good

5

Very Good

How would you rate your awareness of river issues after the adopt-a-stream program?

1

None

2

Very Little

3

Somewhat

4

Good

5

Very Good

How could the program be improved?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

85

Appendix II – Kelana Jaya Lake Report Card

86

Appendix III - Explanatory Statement

87

Appendix IV – Consent Form