Insight        Projects        About Me
                                     
scroll
Woodlands Botanical Garden (WBG)
REWILDING URBAN
CONNECTION
We explored how Woodlands Botanical Garden (WBG) could become easier to join, easier to care for, and easier to return to—especially for youth, pet owners, and non-pet owners. Instead of designing events, we focused on repeatable community actions that fit real schedules and site constraints. The outcome was a concept system that links simple micro-volunteering, pet-compatible guidelines, and lightweight coordination so more people can contribute to biodiversity without needing expert knowledge.
WBG is a nature space with ecological value, but participation tends to concentrate among people who already feel confident in nature activities. Many youths and casual visitors want to help, but they lack clear “what can I do here?” options, simple rules, and social proof that it’s okay to join. For pet owners, access and etiquette can be unclear, and for non-pet owners, mixed-use spaces can feel unpredictable. This project started from a simple question: how might we design a shared system where both pet owners and non-pet owners can contribute to biodiversity in small, consistent ways—without turning the garden into a strict, high-effort program?

Problem Statement
Although WBG is open to all, most youth find it distance, irrelevant, and unengaging.
Hypothesis
If WBG offers clear contribution paths (micro-actions + simple rules + light trust/coordination), more youths and casual visitors will participate repeatedly and responsibly.
Research Goal
Identify the main barriers to joining and repeating contribution at WBG, then define a low-friction system that supports both pet owners and non-pet owners to help biodiversity.
Project Overview
Research Categories
Exploratory+ Generative (system direction), Lightweight Evaluative.
Project Type
Service / System Design
Timeline
7 weeks
Contribution
System Direction & Storytelling, Telegram communication structure, flow concepts
Method
Survey, Interviews, Barrier Synthesis, opportunity framing, system mapping, touchpoint definition, Telegram flow prototyping
Deliverables
System map, Telegram Channel, Touchpoint set, Prototype flows
Constraint
Limited operator capacity/low digital confidence -> prioritize a simple, low-cost, low-maintenance system.
Key Insight
Signals that shaped our direction
A quick snapshot of the strongest patterns we validated across research and synthesis.
2020 -> Now

WBG started in 2020 and grew from a grassy slope into a living garden system.

270 Species

The site already hosts at least 270 species (birds, insects, animals).



18 Surveyees

We surveyed 18 youths to understand why nature spaces like WBG don’t get chosen in daily life.

9 Touchpoints

We designed and iterated a system across 7 weeks, landing on 9 touchpoints and 3 Telegram flow versions. 
Pet owners are the most “already active” entry level.
We consistently saw pet-walking as a frequent, repeat behaviour around WBG. That existing rhythm makes pet owners a practical first audience for participation, because they already return and already notice changes in the space.
WBG gives value, but give-back loop is weak.
WBG offers experiences and learning, but it doesn’t consistently receive support in return. Our direction shifted toward designing a simple give-back loop where youths can contribute through small, repeatable actions that actually help operations.
The real constraint is maintainability, not ideas.

The best concept is the one the garden can keep running with limited capacity. That pushed us to use familiar, low-maintenance tools and reduce complexity in comms and coordination.

Research Impact

User Impact · Strategic Impact · Business Impact

We translated research insights into decisions that improve user clarity, align with strategy, and enable business outcomes.

👤
User Impact
  • Make participation easy to read for first-timers—where to go, what to do, and what happens next.
  • Turn vague intent into small, doable steps that lower the barrier to join.
  • Set clear guidance and expectations so people feel safer and more confident showing up.


Clarity ↑ Confidence ↑ Drop ↓
🧭
Strategic Impact
  • Reframe WBG from a place to visit into a community system people can contribute to.
  • Replace one-off visits with a repeatable loop: discover → join → contribute → share → return.
  • Make contributions visible, even lightweight ones, so biodiversity learning feels real and trackable.

Participation loop ↑
 Contribution culture ↑
 Visibility ↑
🏦
Operational Impact
  • Reduce manual coordination by using a familiar channel structure and clear handoffs.
  • Make community management more sustainable for a small team, with less chasing and fewer one-off explanations.
  • Standardise how people join, where submissions go, and who posts, so updates stay consistent.

Maintainability ↑ Admin Load ↓ 
 Consistency ↑
Methodologies

What I did — and why I chose it

Key methods used in the project, why they were chosen, and what they produced.

01
Field Visit + Context Observation (WBG walkthrough)
We visited WBG to understand the space as it is used today—routes, terrain, rest points, and what “friction” looks like on-site. This helped us design touchpoints that are realistic (not just aesthetic).
    
Output
Site constraints list · opportunity moments · touchpoint feasibility notes
02
Stakeholder Interview (Ganesh, real client)
We interviewed Ganesh to align on what WBG can realistically sustain (time, manpower, tech comfort). This anchored our system design around low-maintenance operations.

Output
constraints + success criteria · “what’s maintainable” checklist · system requirements
03
Youth Survey
We ran a youth survey to capture quick, everyday reasons WBG-like places don’t get picked: time, distance, “not sure what to do,” and social pull. The goal was to translate vague intent into clearer, smaller steps.
Output
audience split insights · motivation/barrier themes · participation triggers
04
Desk Research
We synthesized desk research on pet trends (pet humanisation), Singapore pet constraints (e.g., housing rules), and comparable community spaces to stress-test feasibility and decide what to not build.
Output
feasibility filters · “adapt / avoid” list · design sizing references (small vs large dogs)
05
Service System Mapping + Prototype Testing
We mapped the end-to-end service flow (offline + online), then prototyped and tested the Telegram-based community system (welcome, moderation, routing, form-to-admin relay) to validate that the concept can run with minimal admin load.
   
Output
service blueprint / user flow · channel architecture · tested bot functions + handover-ready logic
Evidence (screenshots)
Desk Research
Youth Survey
Prototyping
          *Replace placeholder hashes with your real screenshots. Keep them similar aspect ratio for a clean grid.        


Reflection














Reflection
What I learned and how we’ll apply it next

A short wrap-up on decisions, trade-offs, and what we’d improve in the next iteration.

Key reflections
What worked well
We kept coming back to one check: can this run without constant pushing. That kept the system small, repeatable, and realistic for a community garden setting.


Feasibility
 Repeatability Clarity
Trade-offs we accepted
We chose simple, consistent touchpoints over highly customised experiences. Some moments feel less “tailored,” but the overall journey becomes easier to understand and maintain.

Simplicity Consistency Ops load ↓
What we’d do differently
We’d validate earlier with two groups: first-time visitors and volunteer/admin helpers. That would tighten the onboarding language, pacing, and what needs to be visible up front.

Earlier testing
 Onboarding
 Prioritisation
Open questions
Long-term adoption depends on ownership: who updates schedules, moderates posts, and handles issues. We still need a clear governance model and handover plan.


Ownership
 Handover Governance
How we’d measure success (concept level)
In a next step, we’d look for practical signals: fewer “how do I join?” questions, smoother event coordination without chasing, and clearer repeatable routines for volunteers.

    
Repeat visits
 Retention
 Friction ↓
Next steps
Reduce the system to a minimum set of touchpoints, run one small pilot cycle (2–4 weeks), then refine rules, templates, and the admin workflow based on what breaks in real use.   
 
Pilot Iterate Systemise