Editorial

The initiative by 250 volunteers and 42 organisations that teamed up with GreenPak for the fourth annual seabed clean up, aimed at bringing about a healthier and cleaner environment, is a very good example of pro-social and environmental-friendly behaviour. Such activities also help focusing public's attention to the reckless behaviour of certain individuals and the need to do better in treating such wounds.

In spite of all the efforts being made to make people aware of the need to protect the environment, it remains incredible what sort of rubbish can be recovered from the seabed during such clean up drives. It is indeed sad that, although, through a proper civic conscience and utilisation of recycling facilities, the majority of plastics, paper and glass can be prevented from being dumped at sea, generally speaking, we are still faced with an unpleasant environment. An unpleasant environment because the rubbish thrown into the sea is not the only problem the country faces due to elements of bad behaviour, including vandalism.

Bad behaviour implies intent by an individual but, at times, the environment suffers also as a result of poor or inferior design of facilities, which cannot stand up to wear and tear. It may also be a case of an individual, especially in the case of young children, not fully realising the consequences of his/her actions.

There are various categories of vandalism: damage done to acquire money or property; damage done to achieve another end, like breaking a window to commit a robbery; to further a cause or get a message across, such as slogans on buildings and billboard defacement; damage inflicted incidentally or deliberately as part of a game or competition; damage done to express rage or frustration damage done to property that could wrongly be regarded as unimportant or of no value.

Experience in many countries shows that preventing or minimising vandalism seems to depend on the right formula, or package, of measures. These would include police presence, electronic surveillance and, above all, a strong coordinated education campaign. For instance, an education programme that involves the police and community representatives touring schools to speak to students about the negative and destructive effects of the various forms of anti-social behaviour, including vandalism. Such a programme may perhaps also include particular emphasis on peer culture, which can lead young people - and also the not-so-young - into situations they would never normally contemplate.

Prevention of certain types of vandalism basically comes down to the same principles as all crime prevention through environmental design: controlling access, fostering a sense of ownership, using the best vandal-proof materials affordable, good management practices and maximising natural and formal surveillance of vulnerable sites. Perhaps a survey of vandalised and non-vandalised public property and a comparison of the environmental factors operating in the different cases might lead to some valuable clues about what will or will not survive undamaged in different locations or circumstances.

In the meantime, civil and religious leaders, and, of course, the media, should join forces to ensure that more coordinated efforts are aimed at helping people understand the need for accepting responsibility for the community they are living in. People need to be assisted in realising the impact destructive behaviour will have on their community. The more each of us understands the problem, the better prepared we can be.