, Volume 62, Issue 1–4, pp 178–185 | Cite as

Women’s Environmental Literacy in Managing Waste for Environmental Sustainability of the City

  • Donna AsteriaEmail author


The article illustrates the research on environmental literacy of women in Jakarta, Indonesia, related to managing household waste through the application of the ‘5R’ principle: reduce, reuse, recycle, replant, and recovery. The results show that women exceeded the operational level literacy by taking proactive actions to empower their communities to protect the environment.


Environmental literacy Women Socio-ecology Household waste Sustainable development 



The article is based on the author’s dissertation entitled ‘Classification of Women’s Environmental Literacy in Typology of Urban Areas (Study of Women’s Experiences as Activists of Pro-Environmental Actions in the Jakarta Area)’, Doctoral Program, School of Environmental Sciences, Universitas Indonesia, which then was developed into a research project funded by a PUPT Research grant (Kemristekdikti) with contract number 1083/UN2.R12/HKP05.00/2016. Thanks go to Professor Ibnu Hamad, Francisia Ery Seda, Ph.D., and Dr. Elizabeth Kristie Poerwandari from the Universitas Indonesia for guidance, insight, and expertise throughout the research process.


  1. Barry, John. 1999. Environment and Social Theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Benton, Ted. 1993. Natural relations: Ecology, animal rights, and social justice. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  3. Berkowitz, Alan R., Mary E. Ford, and Carol A. Brewer. 2005. A framework for integrating ecological literacy, civics literacy, and environmental citizenship in environmental education. In Environmental Education or Advocacy: Perspectives of Ecology and Education in Environmental Education, ed. E.A. Johnson and M.J. Mappin, 227–265. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blaikie, Piers, Katrina Brown, Michael Stocking, Lisa Tang, Peter Dixon, and Paul Silitoe. 1997. Knowledge in action: Local knowledge as a development resource and barriers to its incorporation in natural resource research and development. Agricultural Systems 55(2): 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0138799245.Google Scholar
  6. Capra, Fritjof. 1984. The turning point. reissue edition. Bantam: New York. Retrieved from Accessed on 23 November 2011.
  7. Cohen, Emma. 2010. Anthropology of knowledge. Journal of the Royal Anthropological 16: S193–S202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elkana, Yehuda. 1981. A Programmatic Attempt at an Anthropology of Knowledge. In Sciences and cultures: Anthropological and historical studies of the sciences, vol. 5, ed. Everett Mendelsohn and Yehuda Elkana, 1–68. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. ISBN 978-90-277-1234-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hares, Minna, Anu Eskonheimo, Timo Myllyntaus, and Olavi Luukkanen. 2006. Environmental literacy in interpreting endangered sustainability: Case studies from Thailand and Sudan. Geoforum 37: 128–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heiskanen, Eva. 2006. Encounters between ordinary people and environmental science—A transdisiplinary perspective of environmental literacy. The Journal of Transdiciplinary Environmental Studies 5: 1–2.Google Scholar
  11. Herdiansyah, Herdis, Trisasono Jokopitoyo, and Ahmad Munir. 2016. Environmental Awareness to Realizing Green Islamic Boarding School (Eco-Pesantren) in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 30(1): 012017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hermawan, Fahmi. 2018. Optimization of Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste from Resource to Intermediate Treatment Facility with Nearest Neighbour Method (Study on six Sub Sub District in DKI Jakarta Province). Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development 1(1): 86–99. Scholar
  13. Hill, Stuart. 2003. Social ecology as a framework for understanding and working with social capital and sustainability within rural communities. In Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development: The Missing Link, ed. A. Dale and J. Onyx. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  14. Joseph, Benny. 2005. Environmental Studies. New Delhi: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  15. Martello, Marybeth Long. 2001. A Paradox of Virtue? “Other” Knowledges and Environment-Development Politics. Global Environmental Politics 1(3): 114–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Miller, G.Tyler. 2003. Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions. Vancouver: Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  18. Orr, David W. 1992. Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ruliana, Vita, Roekmijati W. Soemantojo, and Donna Asteria. 2019. Assessing a community-based waste separation program through examination of correlations between participation, information exposure, environmental knowledge, and environmental attitude. ASEAN Journal of Community Engagement 3(1): 1–27. Scholar
  20. Sutton, Philip W. 2007. The Environment: A Sociological Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. UNESCO. 1997. Annual Report 1997. Jakarta: UNESCO Jakarta Office.
  22. West, Richard, and Lynn H. Turner. 2007. Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. 3rd ed. Singapore: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for International Development 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication Sciences, Faculty of Social and Political SciencesUniversitas IndonesiaDepokIndonesia

Personalised recommendations