Passive Litter |
VS. |
Active Litter |
Passive littering, in contrast, is perceived more acceptable as a social norm and therefore more resistant to change (Sibley pg.1). An example of passive littering would include an individual leaving their litter behind and “failing to remove it” (Sibley pg.1). Passive littering is common due to the nature of passiveness being more acceptable, and viewed as unintentional or forgetful rather than environmentally irresponsible. In pursuance of eradicating passive littering, it is significant to stress social respect for those surroundings to add pressure in anticipation of: discontinuing left behind litter, properly disposing of litter, and diminishing poor social norms.
|
Active littering is considered to be the more intentional type of littering. It is viewed as less acceptable in social constructs due to the shaming and embarrassment from peers involved. An example of active littering would be an individual dismissing all regards to search for a waste disposal, and in turn dropping their litter wherever they please and continue onwards (Sibley pg.1).
With active litter, “supplemental analyses showed that among individuals who disposed of an item, distance to the receptacle was positively predictive of littering.” (Schultz pg.1). This shows that it is not focused heavily on the location of a trash bin, but is a result in a poor behavioural standard amongst people. The largest contributors towards active littering are smokers. Studies show that the “littering rate for smokers is 65% in which 17% of it is cigarette butts” (Schultz pg.1). Smokers pose a large portion of the issue so consequently when addressing active litter; they are required to be a primary focus in creating solutions. |