final

1

MAKING SINGAPORE A MORE

Reducing bird collisions into buildings in Singapore

BIRD-FRIENDLY CITY

Report by Xavier Neo

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As a world-renowned biophilic City in Nature, Singapore is home to over 300 native

bird species and serves as an important pitstop for many endangered migratory

shorebirds. However, many birds fall victim to building collisions – estimated to cause

a third of all native bird deaths every year and being a fatal obstacle for many

migratory shorebirds. Singapore’s National Parks Board (NParks) serves as the

governmental custodian of all biodiversity matters in the city, but currently lacks a

rigorous system for monitoring bird collisions or coordinated efforts in engaging

building owners to install bird-friendly solutions.

This proposal is designed to help NParks tackle the issue of bird collisions in

Singapore via a systematic two-phased approach. First, NParks can create a

collaborative data ecosystem that tracks bird collisions across the city, leveraging its

existing citywide biodiversity database and mobile fieldwork app while onboarding a

range of government, research, and grassroot partners for an expanded data

collection effort. With the data, collision hotspots and collision-prone species can be

identified. Next, NParks can engage building owners in collision hotspots,

incentivizing and collaborating with them to implement bird-friendly solutions. This

would include co-sponsoring installation costs to alleviate their financial concerns,

working with tech innovation agencies to design cheap and portable bird-repelling

devices for scalable deployment at partner buildings, and creating a bird-safe label

to recognize bird-safe buildings. This document also identifies key opportunities,

challenges, and organizational requirements for executing this proposal.

3

BACKGROUND

Why do birds collide into buildings?

Although birds are ubiquitous residents in modern cities, they are not as

adapted to the urban jungle as most might think. A single stationary

skyscraper could be a deadly obstacle for birds flying through a city for two

simple reasons. Firstly, birds are unable to identify clear glass surfaces as

physical barriers, nor can they comprehend reflections in glass. Hence,

many birds collide into windows at full speed and perish on impact.

Secondly, migratory birds, especially, are disoriented by artificial building

lights at night. Birds are attracted to these lights and might fly around them

confusedly, eventually leading to over-exhaustion and increasing the risk

of collisions. Building collisions are one of the leading causes of bird

fatalities in cities, with New York City seeing up to 230,000 deaths a year.

Why does this matter for cities worldwide and Singapore?

A juvenile Oriental pied hornbill dead after crashing into a building

1 Cities like Singapore are becoming increasingly important habitats for wildlife

As natural areas become increasingly threatened by habitat degradation, cities have, ironically,

become crucial habitats for displaced wildlife. According to the Cities and Biodiversity Outlook

published by the Convention of Biological Diversity, cities are fully capable of supporting thriving

populations of native biodiversity and becoming key allies for wildlife conservation. Despite its

small size and dense population, Singapore is home to over 300 native bird species and remains

an important stronghold for several critically endangered ones, all of which provide a host of

ecosystem services that maintain the ecological health of the city.

2 Singapore is a crucial rest stop on two major bird migratory flyways

Many cities serve as refueling pitstops for migratory birds. Situated at the southernmost tip of

continental Asia, Singapore is an important rest point servicing two major flyways: the East Asian-

Australasian flyway and the Central Asian flyway, with the former being traversed by the highest

number of endangered species of any flyway. Over 40 species of migratory shorebirds transit in

Singapore every migration season.

3 Singapore has a biophilic vision for becoming a City in Nature

Singapore has consistently been a leader in championing policies that promote urban biodiversity

in its bid to become a biophilic City in Nature. These policies involve integrating native greenery

into urban spaces and designing an ecologically viable city which attracts wildlife into built areas.

The success of these strategies has drawn more birds into the city, ironically increasing the risk of

collision accidents as birds fly into reflected greenery on building facades. To truly realize

Singapore’s biophilic vision of creating a safe haven for biodiversity in the city, greater attention

should be paid towards minimizing these manmade threats to urban birds.

4

237 collisions of

migratory birds were

recorded between

1998 and 2016, of

which 157 were

fatal

National University of Singapore

1/3 of all dead resident

birds collected between

Nov 2013 and Oct 2017 were

killed in building collisions

National University of Singapore

Barn owl

Chestnut-winged cuckoo

Blue-winged pitta

Black bittern

Yellow-rumped flycatcher

Emerald dove

5

CURRENT POLICY GAPS

The role of the National Parks Board (NParks)

Founded in 1990, the National Parks Board (NParks) champions the mission of making

Singapore a City in Nature. The board is tasked with safeguarding the natural integrity

of Singapore’s cityscape, which includes managing and maintaining all urban greenery

from neighbourhood parks and streetscapes to nature reserves, while being the primary

custodian overseeing all animal and wildlife-related matters in the city. NParks leads the

city’s wildlife conservation, research, and outreach programs to realize Singapore’s

biophilic mission of coexisting with biodiversity on a densely populated island city.

Why are current efforts not enough?

NParks has made commendable leaps in conserving bird habitats and

conducting rigorous satellite tracking of migratory birds via partnerships

with sister organizations in other flyway cities. While extensive research is

conducted on the behavior and ecology of these birds, little has been

done to reduce their risk of building collisions. Current efforts are mostly

limited to providing bird-friendly building recommendations in response

to recent media reports of bird collisions, which are inadequate for

abating the larger issue for two major reasons:

What are other cities doing about this?

New York City’s Audubon society conducts intensive collision tracking with its pool of staff

and volunteers. Data is uploaded to a central citywide database pinpointing the deadliest

buildings, and the Audubon co-implements bird-safe solutions with these buildings. The

robustness of their dBird database has even contributed to recent NYC legislations mandating

bird-friendly materials for all new constructions and renovations. San Francisco and Toronto

have mandated the use of fritted glass in high-risk zones. Vancouver’s Bird Strategy outlined

the intention to pilot bird-friendly tech at city-owned buildings and promote bird-friendly

design guidelines, educating developers and building owners on the issue of bird collisions.

1 Minimal engagement of building owners

Building owners are neither incentivized nor obligated to act on NParks’ building recommendations.

Despite being arguably the most important stakeholders in these conversations for enacting visible

changes on the ground, little has been done to engage or educate them.

2 A glaring data gap

Unlike other flyway cities, Singapore’s attempts at collision monitoring mainly consist of scattered

efforts from grassroot nature groups, which unfortunately do not yield a sufficiently robust database

capable of informing targeted policy interventions. Data discrepancies between each exercise also

reveal the need for a central and systematic platform which consolidates existing community efforts

and expands the scale of data collection to capture the full extent of the problem.

NParks officers installing a satellite tag on a migratory whimbrel for GPS tracking

6

THE REFORM STRATEGY

Proposal Overview

This proposal is organized in two phases to address the two existing policy gaps in a systematic manner. It

effectively harnesses NParks’ remarkable database infrastructure and technology expertise, taps on NParks’

network of public and grassroot partnerships, and builds on their decades of experience in stakeholder

engagement. This framework is adapted from NYC Audubon’s Project Safe Flight, which employed a data-driven

approach to enact bird-friendly solutions with building owners and subsequently yielded highly promising

reductions in collision rates. This section will expand on the rationale and operational details of each phase. It

will also note the potential challenges faced and explain ways in which NParks can work around them.

1

2

Build a collaborative data ecosystem that tracks

bird collisions and identifies high-risk areas

This phase seeks to address the existing data gap by creating a consolidated, user-

friendly data collection system built on NParks’ existing database tech infrastructure. This

will integrate all existing efforts of collision monitoring by other organizations onto a

single platform and engage a host of suitable partners for citywide data collection.

Engage building owners in high-risk areas to pilot

and implement bird-friendly solutions

This phase utilizes the analytical insights from the data collected in Phase 1 to inform

targeted interventions at collision hotspots, educating building owners on the financial

benefits of bird-friendly solutions and incentivizing them to collaborate on pilot trials.

7

This phase leverages NParks’ existing citywide biodiversity database, BIOME, to create a new vertical silo that

houses all bird collision data. This database will be populated using a beginner-friendly version of NParks’

existing staff fieldwork mobile app, which automatically uploads new collision reports into BIOME. This app will

be downloadable for free on public app stores, and the project team will seek to onboard a list of suitable public

and grassroot partners onto this platform for an expanded citywide data exercise.

Why do we need data? ________________________________________________________________

Singapore’s smart governance mantra: Public service must be “data-driven to the core”

The need for data has been drilled into all facets of city government. Likewise, the public and relevant

stakeholders now scrutinize any policy decision based on the robustness of the supporting data.

Need to know where the hotspots are and how to intervene with limited resources

It is unfeasible to impose blanket regulations on all buildings in the city; and installing bird-friendly

hardware incurs costs and resources. Hence, we need to target our interventions at high-risk hotspots.

Need to know which bird species are the most collision-prone

Preliminary research from local ecologists suggests that resident and migratory species collide at

different places and for different reasons, so interventions might vary for each hotspot and species.

1 Build a collaborative data ecosystem that tracks bird

collisions and identifies high-risk areas

8

Proposed partners for data collection

This phase relies heavily on cross-governmental and grassroot partnerships to collect sufficiently robust data.

While it would be ideal if everyone in the city uses the app, not everyone is interested in collecting bird collision

data. Hence, it is important to reach out to organizations and groups with aligned interests for this phase:

OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES

National Environment Agency (NEA): This public agency maintains the cleanliness of Singapore’s

public streets through its partnered cleaning companies. Street cleaners would usually be the first to

spot and sweep up bird carcasses, so getting them onboard would easily expand the reach and scale

of NParks’ data collection efforts.

Ministry of Education (MOE): Bird collisions at schools have seen some media coverage in recent

years, encouraging some schools to devise creative ideas for reducing bird collisions on campuses.

Getting schools onboard would not only expand the datapoint coverage, it also presents a valuable

opportunity for educating students on how they can help to conserve wildlife in their daily lives.

UNIVERSITIES AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS

National University of Singapore (NUS): NUS’ Avian Evolution Lab would be a valuable scientific

resource for examining collision victims and studying collision patterns. Relevant departments and

student interest groups in NUS have also been conducting their own bird collision surveys on campus,

and their data would be important additions to the database.

GRASSROOT NATURE GROUPS AND NON-PROFITS

Animal Concerns, Research and Education Society (ACRES): ACRES runs a 24/7 citywide wildlife

rescue service and is the public’s go-to organization for reporting injured wildlife. Being in daily

contact with injured wildlife, ACRES has immense potential to contribute to the database.

Nature Society Singapore (NSS) and other grassroot groups: Local nature groups like the NSS Bird

Group have been conducting bird collision monitoring independently, and this project would serve

as a much-needed consolidation of these scattered efforts.

CITIZEN SCIENTISTS AND THE NATURE-LOVING PUBLIC

Citizen scientists: NParks has a growing pool of over 400 citizen scientists trained virtually during the

COVID-19 pandemic to assist with biodiversity surveys under the Community-in-Nature Initiative, and

these volunteers would be perfect additions to this data collection project.

Nature-loving public: NParks can publicize the mobile app on news outlets and ground-up interest

groups on social media like the Singapore Wildlife Sightings Facebook group, encouraging interested

members of the community to download the app for free and contribute to data collection.

Potential challenges for partnerships

Most of the partners above would be keen to collaborate due to a shared passion for

conservation and already existing efforts in collision monitoring. One group with greater

inertia for onboarding might be street cleaners due to the additional hassle it creates

on top of their cleaning duties. Many cleaners in Singapore are also older and less tech-

savvy. Possible ways to work around this include implementing easier data-reporting

channels for cleaners like sending WhatsApp photos, targeting younger cleaners for this

exercise, or providing reward incentives like vouchers for participating cleaners.

9

Using data outputs from Phase 1, this phase involves engaging and convincing building owners in collision

hotspots to trial and adopt bird-friendly hardware. NParks will also collaborate with innovation agencies to

design and pilot cost-effective, portable bird-safe tech solutions for scalable deployment at partner buildings.

Why the need to design tech? ________________________________________________________

While it would be ideal for all buildings to use bird-friendly glass or window stickers, it is impractical for authorities

to make this compulsory, especially for existing buildings.

Working with GovTech, the city’s inhouse tech incubation lab, NParks can explore

cheap, easy-to-install and ecologically viable solutions to repel high-risk species

from buildings without the need for expensive renovation work. This taps on NParks’

existing collaborations with GovTech for other biodiversity tech and park

management projects. Possible tech solutions include devices which emit magnetic

fields or predator calls to repel birds, like this yellow Raspberry Pi-powered box

which uses visual recognition algorithms to emit corresponding predator alarms

based on the approaching bird species identified. Of course, there is no guarantee

that these devices will be effective without having negative effects on birds. Hence,

NParks’ scientific expertise would be quintessential in assessing

the efficacy and safety of these pilot trials.

2 Engage building owners in high-risk areas to pilot and

implement bird-friendly solutions

"It may not be practical or feasible for building authorities to make it mandatory for

building owners and developers to install bird-friendly glass in building facades."

Alfred Chia, Nature Society Singapore Bird Group

VFly, a robotics invention by a team of NYC youths which uses IBM visual recognition programs loaded into a Raspberry Pi to emit predator calls according to the species identified. This invention clinched Second Place at the LEGO® Global Innovation contest

10

Addressing challenges in engaging building owners

Conscientious engagement is critical to garner support from building owners, as some might be reluctant to

incur extra costs or manhours just to install bird-friendly solutions. While it might be easy to persuade them to

switch their building lights off at night, the same cannot be said for hardware solutions like window stickers or

UV-reflecting glass (which are still necessary to prevent daytime collisions) as these are more resource-intensive.

Getting buy-ins from building owners would require empathy in understanding their concerns and incentivizing

them with appropriate methods. This could involve alleviating their financial concerns by either offering co-

sponsored schemes, educating them on why bird-friendly solutions make economic sense in the long run; or

creating bird-safe labels that recognize their efforts and boost their property value:

11

ORGANIZATIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Why NParks has the technical expertise for this proposal

✓ NParks has the required tech infrastructure in place, like a fully

functioning citywide biodiversity database and accompanying

fieldwork apps which connect seamlessly with the backend tech

✓ NParks staff are well-versed with biodiversity tech and data,

having won international awards in spearheading smart city tech

solutions and data-driven policy

✓ NParks has existing programs for training citizen scientists

to aid biodiversity data collection efforts, which can be easily

expanded to other public agencies and interest groups

✓ NParks has decades of experience in stakeholder engagement

and external collaborations for both tech and non-tech projects

Proposed organizational changes

A comprehensive organizational review of NParks was conducted during the conception of this proposal. This

was done to identify areas requiring potential restructuring for a more seamless execution of this project and

other biodiversity data projects that NParks may embark on. The review’s main recommendations include:

Transfer the BIOME database team into the Wildlife Management cluster

As the database team and wildlife management/outreach teams are in separate work clusters, this

proposal pushes for an organizational reshuffle that places them in the same cluster for more

streamlined workflows and inter-team targets for all biodiversity data projects.

Form a specialized Bird Collision Working Group within the Wildlife Management cluster

With the database and wildlife management teams under the same cluster, this would facilitate

the formation of a cohesive team that marries backend tech expertise with experience in wildlife

issues and public outreach. Details on the proposed team structure are in Appendix I.

Take incisive measures to address unhealthy symptoms in workplace culture

The organizational review also highlighted issues of rigidity and toxicity in workplace culture which

threaten to hinder cross-department collaborations. Efforts to create staff-centric platforms that

encourage open conversations about improving NParks’ work culture are strongly encouraged.

Hire new staff to ease out existing workloads

The high workload of existing staff members impedes their ability to lead an entirely new

workstream for this project. New hires might be required to either spread out the workload in

existing workstreams or to take on larger roles in this project.

Projected budget

An initial budget estimate for this project is included in Appendix II. Capital expenditure is expected to be low as

NParks already has the required database and front-end tech infrastructure for Phase 1. R&D costs in Phase 2

would not be as high as conventional tech projects as the bird-friendly solutions trialed are supposed to be

cheap and portable. The project’s largest expenditure items are predicted to be staffing costs for new hires and

co-sponsoring bird-friendly solutions for building owners.

12

CONCLUSION

Measuring success

NParks can easily track the progress and

effectiveness of this project. For Phase 1, KPIs can

include the number of app downloads and the

number of uploaded collision reports from each

onboarded partner. As for Phase 2, KPIs can include

the percentage of building owners onboarded in

each collision hotspot. In the longer run, the collision

tracking data ecosystem created in Phase 1 will serve

as a self-check on whether bird collision rates have

reduced after these interventions.

Further steps

This proposal serves as a preliminary foundation for

a plethora of possibilities in advancing bird-friendly

causes. In terms of designing cost-effective bird-

friendly tech, NParks can gather more ideas via

public hackathons or open calls for idea submissions,

an approach which can also be adopted for NParks’

other biodiversity tech projects. And with more

robust data over time, Singapore might eventually

follow the likes of New York City and San Francisco,

using data to influence legislation on bird-friendly

building regulations in collision hotspots.

In closing

Monitoring and reducing bird collisions in cities is an uphill task that remains challenging even for the most well-

equipped of cities – given the labor-intensive data collection required on a citywide scale and the difficulties of

convincing building owners to join these efforts. However, it remains a crucial cause for safeguarding our avian

biodiversity and creating habitable urban spaces for increasingly threatened species, especially for aspiring

biophilic cities like Singapore. NParks has the required expertise and experience to helm such a project despite

the anticipated challenges, and the project’s potential for onboarding a host of collaborative partners is highly

promising. As this project grows in scale and partnerships, it will bring Singapore one step closer to becoming a

biophilic and bird-friendly city.

13

CREDITS Interviews

▪ Dr Terryanne Maenza-Gmlech, Lecturer of Urban Ecology, New York University

▪ Tan Bing Yang, local birdwatcher in Singapore

Interview details included in Appendix III

Images

▪ Page 1: Wong Tuan Wah (NParks) ▪ Page 2: Maria Vincent Robinson ▪ Page 3: Stephen Caffyn Landscape Design ▪ Page 4: Lim Kim Chuah, David Tan,

Singapore Bird Group ▪ Page 5: NParks, NYC Audubon

▪ Page 6: Maria Vincent Robinson ▪ Page 8: NEA Singapore, MOE Singapore,

NUS, ACRES, NSS, The Straits Times ▪ Page 9: GovTech, NYC Audubon ▪ Page 11: NParks ▪ Page 12: David Li (NParks)

All icons used were taken from the Microsoft Office library

References

▪ Chicago Audubon (2019) Bird Friendly Chicago.

▪ City of Chicago (2006) Chicago’s Bird Agenda 2006.

▪ City of Toronto (2016) Bird-Friendly Development Guideline: Best Practices.

▪ City of Vancouver (2015) Vancouver Bird Strategy.

▪ Convention on Biological Diversity (2012) Cities and Biodiversity Outlook: Action and Policy.

▪ GovTech Singapore (2019) ‘How tech is changing the way Singapore manages parks and gardens’.

▪ Glassdoor (2021) ‘National Parks Board Reviews’. Accessed Nov 10, 2021.

https://www.glassdoor.sg/Reviews/National-Parks-Board-Reviews-E401090.htm

▪ Gwee, J. (2012) Case Studies in Public Governance: Building Institutions in Singapore, Singapore: Routledge.

▪ Jobstreet (2021) ‘National Parks Board Reviews’. Accessed Nov 10, 2021.

https://www.jobstreet.com.sg/en/companies/658368-national-parks-board/reviews

▪ Low et al. (2017) ‘Migratory bird collisions with man-made structures in Southeast Asia: a case study from

Singapore’, BirdingAsia, 27, 107-11.

▪ National Parks Board, Singapore (2018) National Biodiversity Plan.

▪ National Parks Board, Singapore (2021) Annual Report 2020/2021: Embracing Nature.

▪ National Parks Board, Singapore (2021) ‘National Biodiversity Centre’. Accessed Nov 10, 2021.

https://www.nparks.gov.sg/biodiversity/national-biodiversity-centre

▪ Newman, P. (2014) ‘Biophilic urbanism: a case study on Singapore’, Australian Planner, 51 (1), 47-65.

▪ New York City Audubon (2018) The Urban Audubon Newsletter Vol 39 (2).

▪ New York City Audubon (2021) ‘Project Safe Flight’. Accessed Nov 10, 2021.

https://nycaudubon.org/our-work/conservation/project-safe-flight

▪ Rowe, P.G. and L. Hee (2019) A City in Blue and Green, Singapore: Springer.

▪ San Francisco Planning Department (2011) Standards for bird-safe buildings.

▪ Singapore Bird Group (2015) ‘Migratory Bird Collisions in Singapore’.

▪ Tay, S. (2020) ‘The secret to Singapore’s data-driven government’, GovInsider.

▪ The Straits Times (2018) ‘Collision into buildings cause of many birds’ deaths: Study’.

▪ Today Singapore (2017) ‘Satellite tracking of migratory birds to take flight this year’.

▪ Today Singapore (2021) ‘School tries to keep buildings from ‘killing’ birds,

NParks to release design guidelines next year’.

14

APPENDICES

Appendix I: Proposed Team Structure

Core team members would come from NParks’ Wildlife Management and Conservation Groups led by Dr Adrian

Loo, along with staff from the National Biodiversity Centre which manages the BIOME database.

• As a project that relies heavily on external partnerships in both phases, an experienced member from the

Wildlife Management & Outreach department would serve as the Project Lead to synchronize the

various workflows and coordinate efforts between public stakeholders and NParks’ backend teams.

o Two other members of this department would be in-charge of outreach efforts for Phases 1 and

2 respectively since stakeholder engagement efforts in both phases are quite different and

demanding in nature.

• Two members from the BIOME Database team would serve as tech leads for Phase 1, working with each

other and the outreach team to design a collaborative and intuitive data ecosystem that allows for

efficient and robust collision monitoring by partner agencies and members of the public.

• One member from the Wildlife Management Research department will lead the analysis of the collision

data to identify collision hotspots, differentiate collision patterns between different species and

categories of birds, and pinpoint high-risk species. Another member will work with external innovation

agencies to trial bird-friendly tech solutions based on the ecology of specific collision-prone species

using these research outputs.

• Two members from the Conservation department will serve as scientific advisors and assist the Wildlife

Management Research department in studying collision patterns for species of interest. As the

Conservation department is split into groups managing different nature areas, one member would

specialize in native species mostly inhabiting the Central Nature Reserve while the other would specialize

in migratory shorebirds visiting the Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve.

15

Appendix II: Projected Budget

Category Description Estimated cost (SGD) Estimated cost (USD)

(1 USD ≈ 1.35 SGD)

CAPEX Database and app technology1

S$ 50,000 US$ 37,000

OPEX Staffing costs S$ 300,000 US$ 222,200

IT Operation & Maintenance2 S$ 10,000 US$ 7,400

Outreach efforts S$ 50,000 US$ 37,000

R&D for bird-friendly tech3 S$ 100,000 US$ 74,000

Co-sponsor scheme for

building owners

S$ 240,000 US$ 177,700

Total S$ 750,000 US$ 555,300

1 Database and app technology costs are expected to be low as NParks already has the BIOME database and

accompanying mobile app infrastructure in place. Adding a new silo to the BIOME database and adapting existing

app templates for this project would not incur a large CAPEX sum.

2 IT Operation & Maintenance costs will be largely subsumed under existing department operating budgets for the

National Biodiversity Centre (BIOME), so project-specific operating costs would be low.

3 R&D costs will be lower than those of conventional tech projects as the developed tech is supposed to be low-cost

and portable. Tech ideas can also be adapted from existing solutions designed for other cities instead of innovating

from scratch, further reducing costs. R&D costs can also be co-shared with GovTech’s own R&D budget.

Appendix III: Interviews

Dr Terryanne Maenza-Gmelch (Lecturer of Urban Ecology, New York University) kindly agreed to a casual 10-

minute interview after an Urban Bird Ecology class she was conducting. She provided valuable insight into the

current state of citizen science tech available and offered various ideas for leveraging tech solutions to monitor

bird collisions. She also introduced the author of this proposal to the wonders of urban birdwatching, and

demonstrated the capabilities of two free fieldwork apps, i-Naturalist and Merlin, which use AI algorithms to

identify bird species using photographs taken by the user. Dr Maenza-Gmelch then shared about the severity of

bird collisions in New York City, going briefly into NYC Audubon’s bird-safe interventions in Project Safe Flight.

Tan Bing Yang (local birdwatcher in Singapore) shared his enthusiasm for having a user-friendly public platform

to report bird collisions and provided valuable feedback on how it could be designed for wider outreach efforts.

Another friend of his also introduced the author to nature interest groups on social media like the Singapore

Wildlife Sightings Facebook group, which the author is now a member of.

The author tried to reach a staff member in NParks’ Wildlife Management group through a mutual contact, but

this did not materialize.