The Success of Youth-Oriented Environmental NGO: A Case Study of Koalisi Pemuda Hijau Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Introduction1.1 The Development of Environmental NGOs in IndonesiaThe environmental movement has grown into a global effort in overcoming various environmental crisis's and problems on a global scale. Although this movement initially stemmed from Western industrialized countries, it is now in motion in nearly all countries throughout world. The environmental movement is supported by millions of global citizens and exceeds any social or spatial boundaries. It is no exaggeration to say that environmental movement has been described as the most comprehensive, influential movement of our time (Castells, 2010, p. 72).Some agencies that are actively involved in environmental movement are environmental NGOs (ENGOs). ENGOs are involved and have a role in almost every country in world. In context of Indonesia, ENGOs as independent organizations with a focus on environmental issues began to grow and develop in 1970s (Hendarti & Nomura, 2005). At that time, ENGO involvement was a response to environmental damage occurring due to citizens' limited awareness of environmental conservation. As an example, WWF (World Wildlife Fund) found that deforestation was cause of diminishing orangutan habitats in Sumatra in early 1970s. YIH (Yayasan Indonesia Hijau - Green Indonesia Foundation) was established in 1978 in follow-up to a WWF project. YIH initiated activities in nature conservation education, in collaboration with schools in Bogor city, which then spread to Bandung, Surabaya, Makassar and Palembang cities. In that same year, Kelompok Sepuluh Pengembangan Lingkungan Hidup (Environmental Development Group of Ten) was established, consisting of 10 NGOs that assisted government in resolving environment issues. In 1980, WALHI (Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia or Indonesian Forum for Environment) was established in Jakarta as a forum of environmental activists, groups and organizations with an orientation on environmental issues and actions. The establishment of these ENGOs marked beginning of ENGO movement in Indonesia (Hendarti & Nomura, 2005, p. 35; Sinanu, 2006; Suharko, 2005).ENGO development intensified in late 1980s up until early 1990s. ENGOs began to move into policy advocacy, in addition to continuing to develop various environmental actions, such as encouraging environmental awareness in communities, and implementing environmental education activities both in and out of schools. In late 1980s, WALHI appeared to distance itself from government through various policy advocacy actions on environmental issues. WALHI took on policy advocacy due to a variety of environmental problems that actually derived from government policy.The strengthened environmental advocacy orientation that was apparent in WALHI, was also evident in establishment of an array of ENGOs in a number of regions that focused on encouraging policy reform pertaining to conservation of natural resources and environment. Lembaga Alam Tropika (LATIN) or Institute of Tropical Nature Indonesia in Bogor offered alternative forest resource management through 'community forestry'. Warung Informasi Konservasi (WARSI) or Conservation Information Forum was a network of 12 NGOs working in 4 provinces in Sumatra, focusing on conservation of biodiversity and 'community development' through training and education for local communities. Yayasan Wisnu or Wisnu Foundation in Bali prioritised water and soil management and pollution issues and disseminating information to communities.Environmental education activities continued to be developed by ENGOs at same time. In late 1980s, WALHI in collaboration with environmental groups started to develop a conservation education program through trainings, called Pendidikan Konservasi Alam (PKA) or Nature Conservation Education for nature loving groups in senior high schools and universities. In 1990, Seloliman Pusat Pendidikan Lingkungan Hidup (PPLH) or Environmental Education Centre in Mojokerto, East Java was founded. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".