…architecture of something else

The Jakarta Post, 13 December 2007

Opinion and Editorial
Yandi Andri Yatmo and Paramita Atmodiwirjo

Environmental education is a key issue in responding to climate change. There have been countless efforts to spread the awareness of climate change into society. Information is everywhere about global warming and its impacts on our life. However, we cannot simply expect that after knowing the facts on global warming, everybody would voluntarily join environment-friendly attitudes in their everyday life. The question is: Do people really know what they need to know to respond to current environmental issues?

There are two types of knowledge relating to climate change and its relationship to our life. The first type is the knowledge delivered through massive spread of information on the facts of climate change. This is the knowledge we most often find in the media everyday. It tells people on the factual status of our earth, the increasing temperature, the melting of snow and the rising of sea levels, as well as the worrying situation of our forest, water, and wildlife. These are all the facts that are primarily empirical, based on quantitative findings to illustrate the current situation of our environment.

On the other hand, there is another type of knowledge informed to our society as a plea to lead more environment-friendly way of life. Such information usually appears as a series of suggestion to reduce
electricity use, to cycle or walk to work, to reduce the use of plastic, to plant trees, to avoid littering and to manage garbage. Some suggestions are even very extreme, persuading people to turn off the lights in the evening or to completely avoid plastic stuffs and wooden furniture.

These two types of knowledge represent two different aspects of information related to environment. The first type primarily intends to inform the facts, while the second encourage people to act. The first may inform the facts that happen somewhere else — in the arctic, in another country, in the middle of the jungle. The second type suggests some practical things for everyday life. Both types of information have been used for the sake of educating people.

Nevertheless, an important thing to consider in environmental education is how these two types of knowledge are related to one another. It is very important to ensure that people really understand to what extent their acts of planting trees could be related to reducing carbon emission.

This becomes particularly important when environmental education is implemented in basic education levels. It is mandatory that the knowledge on the environment is delivered correctly to our future generation.

So far there are two choices. We may tell them numerical facts of global warming and its impact which currently occur somewhere else, or we may teach them some practical things that they could apply immediately in their own home, school or neighborhood.

Some of the information, especially those related to practical things, is not necessarily new, since they can be found in most primary and secondary school textbooks. Most pupils have known the popular jargon that taught them not to litter (Buanglah sampah pada tempatnya). Textbooks mention a lot about recycling, the difference between organic and inorganic garbage, and the importance of using electricity wisely. Even primary school first-graders have learned about the criteria of a good home environment, which should have enough trees, ventilation, window, rubbish dump and water drainage.

Unfortunately, most often these aspects of environment are taught partially. There were no attempts to encourage the children to think about the connections among different environmental aspects.

Recently we had an opportunity to deliver an environmental education program to primary school children. During one of the sessions we encouraged the children to examine what happened with the rubbish in their school. After they identified the types of garbage produced in their school everyday, we asked them to explain what to do with the garbage. An answer easily came out: “Recycle them”. However, they had no idea when we inquired further what they meant with recycle and how they actually could do it. It illustrates clearly that these children were aware of the term “recycle” without really knowing what it was.

Similarly, most of them did not have the competence in explaining the relationship between “littering” and “flood”, although they knew by heart the phrase “littering causes flood”. The lack of understanding in such simple concept really worried us.

Eventually there would be similar lack of understanding when dealing with more complicated issues, in relating global warming facts with our everyday actions. Children may enjoy joining the acts of planting
trees, but if no further inquiry is taken, they would not understand the important roles of trees to our environment.

We believe that understanding environmental issues and responding to them requires certain level of abilities to think critically. Such critical thinking is necessary to understand the ideas of connections among environmental issues.

After all, environment is about connecting — cause and effects, intervention and impacts, relationship among species, places and matters. There is no point instructing our children to do certain acts, if we do not encourage them to explore the connections. We make a real big mistake if we introduce environmental knowledge to our children simply by pouring out facts, jargons and instructions.

In fact, promoting critical thinking on environmental issues should become the heart of environmental education.

The writers are lecturers of architecture at the University of Indonesia. They actively develop environmental education programs for primary school children with Education Care Unit. They can be contacted at mitayandi@gmail.com.