A Critical Review of the 36th Edition Singapore Bird Race 2020
On 5th and 6th December 2020, the 36th Annual Singapore Bird Race was held with 244 participants from 78 teams — the largest number of participants to date. Amongst them was Minister of National Development Desmond Lee who participated in the Sprint category of the race alongside other birders. This race edition was sponsored by MapleTree and organised by Nature Society Singapore (NSS), with the support of Birdlife International and National Parks Board. This year there were 3 new categories — Novice, Family, and Youth — which were well-received additions to encourage new and upcoming birders to take part. The race was also an unprecedented in which it was held amid a global pandemic with all participants required to adhere to social distancing rules.
For the uninitiated, a bird race is a friendly competition amongst teams to observe birds and accumulate the most number of points to emerge as the winner. Within teams of 3 or 4, at least 2 or 3 members of the team must observe a bird before it can be added to the species checklist, and the admission of a species into the checklist is based on the integrity of teams. Teams are allowed to go to as many places to bird watch within Singapore and off shore islands as long as it is not restricted to the public.
This year’s race placed the spotlight on three nationally threatened species — White-rumped Shama, Blue-rumped Parrot, and the Greater Green Leafbird which are nationally and regionally threatened. During the race, the three aforementioned species and the Straw-headed Bulbul garnered 5 points each, while other nationally threatened species were worth 3 points and 1 point for all other birds on the NSS checklist. The new point system was a game changer for the bird race as it was no longer only about seeing the most number of birds, but about seeing the rare and elusive nationally threatened species. It was also praiseworthy that the organisers used the bird race as a platform to create awareness on the sorry plight of some of our native species.
Another change to this year’s bird race was also the use of ebird to record species instead of handing in hardcopy checklists. The use of ebird made it possible to track the movement of teams in order for the organizers to verify that teams have visited the site and how they traversed it. Its use also added more complexity to the bird race, as not everyone was familiar with using it, causing some confusion.
There were many nice touches to the race that contributed to its success. However, there were many aspects of race that could be improved upon to better facilitate the execution and accountability of the race and its results. The following details the various aspects of the bird race and the associated suggestion for improvements that can be made in future bird races.
Dissemination of information
A. For this year’s bird race, three webinars were conducted to brief participants about the race. These were conducted over 3 separate sessions that ran for about an hour or so each.
1. Getting started with eBird on 21st November 2020 at 8pm for all participants
2. SBR 101 on 28th November 2020 at 2pm for the Novice, Family and Youth
3. Pre-race Briefing on 3rd December 2020 at 8pm
In previous years, rules governing the bird race were given out in hardcopy form without the need to attend any webinar, much less 3 sessions (or 2 sessions if the 2nd session is not relevant). Much of the information given during the webinars could have been easily condensed into a single word document or powerpoint presentation that can then be provided to the participants instead of having it spread over 2–3 webinar sessions. Many participants are either studying or working and having 2–3 additional hour long zoom sessions is a substantial time investment. One could argue that the slides provided were sufficient, but the slides and all race related documents were not provided until 4th December at 6pm, after the final webinar concluded. This was barely 24 hours before the Marathon category started on 5th December at 12.30pm. That said the webinars provided clear instructions and information for the race, and kudos to the organisers for taking the time to hold them.
Suggestion: Have a single document (word or powerpoint) with all the information including instructions, rules and regulations sent out to all participants at least a week ahead over email. Separately, one or two Question and Answer sessions could be held for participants to clarify any queries they may have. Additionally, a question board could be set up for participants to post their questions to be answered by both organizers and other participants, and this could have been easily done over Facebook or the NSS forums.
B. The crucial information about the scoring system and rules were only discussed and released on the evening of 3rd December. This was quite late given that the race was due to start on 5th December at 12.30pm for the Marathon category. This gave participants very little time to strategize. One could argue that everyone had the same timelines so it was fair. But this did not allowed participants to prioritize recce locations to find the species that were worth more points. Additionally, conditions during weekend and weekdays were vastly different, more so now than ever, since overseas travel is not permitted for leisure travelers at the moment. The number of visitors to parks and nature reserves are at record high during this period, which is especially so on weekends, and recces done on a weekday will not reflect conditions on a weekend. Birds are less visible and vocal on weekends given the amount of visitors.
Suggestion: Have the full information for the race disseminated at least one full week before the race to allow participants to simulate race conditions.
Ebird usage
C. This year’s bird race was the first edition that integrated the use of ebird, and it was also timely that Merlin released a Singapore pack just before the start of the race. Merlin is a mobile application developed to assist bird watchers in identifying birds through a photo, sound recording or a series of questions. It serves as a useful tool for beginner bird watchers to quickly narrow down the possible species that was observed and aid in identifying unfamiliar birds. The use of ebird is a progressive change and encourages participants to contribute their observations for citizen science. Such contributions have been demonstrated to be useful in understanding trends, such as detecting species declines. I understand the organizer’s push to use ebird for such a purpose, however, the user base for ebird is not very large in Singapore and hence a good proportion of participants were not familiar with its use. There were some participants who had issues with sharing their checklists with the organisers and had to submit their checklist via email instead. Some teams had also submitted a combination of checklists via ebird and email. The different modes of submission between and within teams would have led to more work for the organizers who would have to sort through both ebird and email checklist submissions.
Suggestion: Checklist submissions should only be accepted through a single mode for the race, ebird or otherwise. If ebird was the suggested mode of submission for the race, all checklists should only be submitted via ebird. The onus will be on teams to make sure that their device is capable of creating and submitting checklists on the ebird app. Organisers could also have made a simulated run at least a week before the actual race compulsory for teams (but at their own time) to trial the ebird app for checklist submissions. In the rare scenario where teams are unable to find a solution during the trial, only then would a concession be made to allow them to send their checklists via other modes such as email. But such concessions should be in the rare minority, and priority during the trial should be made to identify and resolve problems with using ebird.
Submission of checklists over email is not ideal, as the use of ebird was touted as a game changer in a few aspects: routes traversed by teams were able to be assessed by the arbitrators; start and end times for their sightings can be recorded; checklists are also specific to the sites. However, organizers should not enforce their ideals on participants to use a particular platform for their submissions and would recommend having digital checklists submitted in excel format (e.g. Google sheets/forms). This would be similar to previous races where a hardcopy checklist would be submitted and visited localities would be on an honour system. The use of a third party app is especially detrimental in the case of photographers, as they would have to relinquish the copyright to their photos to the owner of ebird, Cornell Ornithology lab.
D. To further complicate the matter, species names on ebird were not concordant with the ones on the NSS checklist. And for the race, not all species on ebird were accepted as species counts based on the NSS checklist, more on this below. This meant that participants had to cross reference both the ebird and NSS checklist in order to verify if a species would count towards their final tally. There were some teams who could not find the species they were looking for on the recommended species list which is generated based on the commonly sighted species at a given location. And many did not know they could add species outside of this recommended list. This led to many erroneous sightings made. In one instance, a team mistakenly put Chestnut-bellied Malkoha that was supposed to be a Yellow-billed Egret and revised it after the race was over. As an experienced bird watcher myself, and one who does not use ebird to record sightings, it was frustrating to have to record species on the basis of the suggested checklist which did not always provide all possible species at the area, especially rare migrants.
Suggestion: As per above, I recommend having a digitized copy of the NSS checklist for participants to fill in and submitted to the organisers for the final tally. This would also remove confusion on the species name or whether it counts. The points for each species can also be clearly listed on the same checklist.
E. Additionally, given that the ebird checklists were digital, it meant that submitted checklists could be edited. After the race had ended, many teams responded in the team leader chat group mentioning their edited checklists and for them to be considered instead of what was originally submitted. Based on the response from the organisers, it seemed that they will consider the revised checklist. This would then go against the rules that all checklists should be submitted by the end time. The allowance for revised checklists meant that some groups were able to correct for species that were initially misidentified (i.e. originally awarded 0 points) but would now get at least one point for their corrections.
Suggestion: If a digitized NSS checklist was used for submission this would not have been an issue, as all submissions will be deemed final and no edits would have been possible. If ebird was necessary, then organisers should download all checklists at 12.31pm (end time for the bird race) and used that for the final tally instead of accepting any revisions. Questions to participants should only be to verify their sighting and not for them to amend their sightings. Organisers should also clarify how revisions were accounted for, and if they were admitted into the final tally.
F. Ebird relies on the capacity of the user’s device and internet connection for it to work reliably. When a checklist is started, the app downloads the checklist data from the nearest hotspot, and this requires a reliable internet connection. In remote areas, such as rifle range, some areas of Pulau Ubin and Sungei Buloh, internet connection is not available or unreliable. In such places, the lack of connectivity would restrict the team;s ability to start or submit checklists. Granted it is possible to save a checklist locally on the device and submit it later, but in instances such as the end of the race, if one were to be birding in localities where connection is just not assessible, it would be to a participant’s detriment.
Comment: In light of the current pandemic, a digital submission was the only viable mode of submission to avoid large crowds. And there should be a strict cut off of submissions before the deadline and the onus will be on the participants to get into an area with internet connection to ensure they can submit their list by the deadline. On this I applaud the organisers for adopting the use of ebird for the race. An alternative would be to use a single digital checklist on a spreadsheet which can be submitted as one document at the end of the race. But as mentioned earlier, it would be much preferred if a digitized checklist on a spreadsheet could be used provided instead.
Accountability, transparency, and clarity
G. The race concluded with a closing ceremony beginning with speeches from Minister of National Development Desmond Lee, President of Nature Society Dr Shawn Lum, Chairman of MapleTree Board of Directors Edmund Cheng, and Birdlife International Regional Director (Asia) Dr Vinayagan Dharmarajah. During the closing webinar there was a lucky draw conducted for 3 lucky winners and a bird quiz. The quiz segment was a nice touch to test the knowledge of participants. But it was puzzling to hear that there were 3 separate winners for each question as answers were submitted together for all 3 questions on Google forms. And winners were decided on the basis of the fastest submissions.
Suggestion: [Lucky draw] There could have been more transparency as to how the lucky draw winners were selected for the lucky draw which could be easily done live display with using a random name generator with an input list of all participants.
Suggestion: [Quiz]: It would be commendable and appreciated if the submissions could be shown live on the host’s response sheet on who is the first respondent that answered the questions correctly. Furthermore, as the bird race served as a platform to familiarize and introduce the public with identifying and appreciating birds, it would have been helpful if an explanation accompanied the announcement of the quiz answers. I am sure that it is not immediately obvious to many, especially given the number of novice participants, as to why the answer to question 1 was Eastern Crowned and Yellow Browed Warbler.
H. There is a lack of clarity as to how checklists were assessed and tallied. Results for the race was delayed indefinitely after it was announced on the evening of 6th December that more time was required to tally the points. It would have been much appreciated if the organisers provided an update on Facebook or over Whatsapp after 24 hours to keep teams posted about the status of the result tally. After all, it was a race and participants are eager to find out the results of the race. As of 7th December at 9pm, the organizers were still confirming the existence of checklists for some teams, implying that checklists were still being assessed up till then, but it is not known if checklists were assessed digitally (on the ebird website) or from a downloaded copy of submitted checklists.
If the checklists were assessed directly from the ebird website, teams would have had the opportunity of editing their checklist after the race race has concluded. This was evident in the chat group and they would be assessed based on a checklist that was polished after the race had concluded.
In the latter scenario, only checklists that were submitted before the deadline and then downloaded by the organisers would be considered for the final tally. This would have been the most unbiased option for all teams, especially so for teams that made sure their submissions were finalized and submitted on time.
Only on 8th December, 6pm, did the race organisers made an announcement that race results will be released the next day, 9th December at 6pm, with results posted on the NSS website. After the top 3 winners from each category were announced on 9th December, the results for the rest of the teams were released on 12th December via the NSS bird group blog showing the rankings for all participating teams.
Suggestion: The organizing team could have provided an update with regards to the final tally after the first 24 hours of delay. The arbitrators and organizing team should also explicitly clarify/provide the following:
1. If the revisions were admitted or were penalties incurred
2. The time period for which were checklists admissible, and if revisions could be detected
3. How checklists were verified, whether it was through the ebird website where live changes cannot be tracked or was a copy of all submitted checklist was downloaded and deemed final at the specified deadline for all teams
4. A detailed checklist and accumulated species points that were accepted for each team should be made publicly available
The release of checklists admissible by teams would be helpful for all parties involved as it will let the respective teams know which species were admitted. At the same time, other teams could learn from the leading teams to see how they have strategized their path to victories. This is a missed opportunity for budding birders to learn from more senior birders about the various species and their localities in Singapore. After all, the race was but a platform to encourage interest in our local avifauna.
I. There was no explicit rule stating how teams who flouted the race rules would be dealt with. This year’s edition of the bird race used ebird to track team checklists, and this provided another layer of accountability by teams to ensure that they abide by the rules and regulations. However, a quick look at the checklist submitted, show that there were some teams that flouted rules, unintentionally or otherwise. There were teams entering nature reserves and nature parks outside of opening hours; e.g. a marathon team started their checklist at 6.49am at Dairy Farm Nature Park on 6th December.
Suggestion: The arbitrators and organizing team should explicitly state in the rules on how teams that flouted rules, if any, would be dealt with. Additionally, they should also explicitly state which checklists were included in the final tally when the results of the race have been announced and have all team checklists be made publicly available.
Other miscellaneous comments
(1) While it was welcoming to have an event to look forward to during a pandemic, but the bird race led to further aggregation of visitors to our already crowded parks and nature reserves. On weekends, the route from rifle range to Jelutong tower is typically filled with so many people that there was at least one person every 5 meters. Furthermore, at least 3 of the highest point yielding species on Singapore Island were most likely to be sighted in the Central Catchment Nature Reserve. And many of the nationally threatened species were also largely restricted to the nature reserves and their peripheral nature parks (e.g. Chestnut-winged babbler, Short-tailed Babbler, Thick-billed Pigeon). Granted, participants will be out and about regardless of the race, but with the race, more people would be concentrated within the nature reserves and parks, adding further stress on the already strained trails there.
(2) The NSS checklist is incomplete and inconsistent. There were obvious species such as the Milky Stork that was not included in the list. The species is an obvious resident that breeds in Singapore and the greater Sundaic region but is not recorded as a species on the NSS checklist despite the inclusion of many other introduced species such as Red Avadavat and Chinese Hwamei. Of the introduced species, the Indian Peafowl is a well-established andcurrently breeds locally but it is not listed on the NSS checklist. The Sulphur-crested Cockatoo, noted to be more common than the Yellow Crested Cockatoo by the NSS bird group, was also not on the NSS checklist.
Concluding remarks
The 36th Edition of the Singapore Bird Race was held with resounding success and a record number of participants and teams. It was commendable that the race was held amidst much difficulties given the ongoing global pandemic which would have restricted many aspects of its organisation and I commend the organising team for pushing the event though.
However, it should be noted that this piece was not written to shame any participating teams nor to chase every last point in the bird race. Instead it was to point out areas in the organization and execution of the bird race that could be improved on to enhance participant experience and enjoyment. This is especially since the Singapore Bird Race is one of the largest event held by the NSS Bird Group to promote bird watching and nature appreciation in Singapore. And with each passing year, the participation in the race has been growing. A large event such as the bird race will need to be transparent and accountable to all participants to ensure that all sightings and teams were treated fairly over the course of the race. By extension, it would then allow the general public to place their faith in NSS to accurately represent their voices in the nature community.
