(c) Source B and Source C each describes one way to deal with the problem shown in Source A.

Which way do you think can better solve the problem? Explain your answer with reference to the
sources provided and your own knowledge. (8 marks)

The problem shown in Source A is the large amount of rubbish being thrown in the country
parks. According to Source A, ‘3800 tonnes of rubbish were collected in country parks in 2014.’
I think the way in Source B can better solve this problem.

Firstly, with regards to positive impacts, the ‘Trashtag challenge’ is an influential item.
According to Source B, ‘the post was reposted more than 300 000 times, triggering the global hit
of trash cleaning’. Since social media is the fastest form of communication, it sends current
cultural trends and increasingly groundbreaking news efficiently. When people, especially
youngsters, saw that the ‘Trashtag challenge’ was always shown on feed, they may like to follow
the trend. Not only can it raise their awareness on environmental problems, it also provides a
channel for them to solve the problem together. On the contrary, law enforcement may only stop
or decrease the amount of rubbish. According to Source C, ‘offenders can be fined HK$1500’.
Although citizens will get punished if they were caught littering, they will still rely on street
cleaners to clear the rubbish, they may not have a thought on helping to clear the rubbish in the
environment.

Secondly, with regards to the effectiveness, the ‘Trashtag challenge’ can educate people to care
about the earth compared to law enforcement. According to Source B, ‘Besides the United
States, many people in India, the United Kingdom and Norway, etc. joined the challenge.’ Not
only it helps to improve the overall hygiene in a certain area, with the use of social media, the
message of protecting the environment and clearing rubbish in the environment is widely spread
across the planet. Many people from various countries also joined the ‘Trashtag challenge’ in
order to give a helping hand to save the environment together. Through this ‘Trashtag challenge’,
not only can it save the environment, it can also educate people the importance of keeping the
earth clean and caring about mother earth. On the contrary, law enforcement only stops the act of
littering, but people will not understand why they should stop littering. According to Source C,
‘it is an offence for anyone to litter within country parks and special areas’. People will only
know that they should not litter, but may not know the reason to stop littering.

Thirdly, with regards to the deterrent effect, the ‘Trashtag challenge’ is more likely to help lessen
the littering problem compared to law enforcement. According to Source B, ‘Take a photo of an
area that needs some cleaning or maintenance, then take a photo after you have done so, and post
them.’ Since social media is only a platform, people are able to distinguish the dos and don’ts
themselves, social media platforms are a feasible way to stop people from littering. Without
using a strong method, people may be more willing to follow the trend. On the contrary, people
may not choose to follow the rules. According to Source C, ‘a total of 60 people were prosecuted
between January and April 2020.’ There may still be people who didn’t follow the rules but were
not caught. Moreover, the fine of HK$1500 does not help to deter people from littering, there are
at least 60 people who ignore this law.