Les atteintes à l'environnement ont toujours été prises en compte sous le prisme des préjudices anthropocentriques, c'est-à-dire ceux qui affectent l'homme et ses biens. De nos jours sous l'impulsion d'une éthique écologique, défendue par les tenants de la conception écocentrique qui prônent la responsabilité de l'Homme envers les biens environnementaux, une grande partie de la doctrine considère les atteintes à l'environnement comme un préjudice écologique pur. Cette notion de préjudice écologique pur peut se définir comme la conséquence dommageable d'une atteinte au patrimoine commun environnemental, d'un certain seuil de gravité et découlant d'un fait imputable à l'homme. La spécificité des caractères du préjudice écologique pur fait que sa reconnaissance et sa réparation sont difficilement appréhendées par le droit civil de la responsabilité environnementale. La réparation du préjudice écologique pur est prise en compte, au niveau européen, par la directive du 21 avril 2004, qui a crée un mécanisme novateur de responsabilité environnementale, transposée en France par la loi du 1er août 2008 qui instaure une police administrative de la prévention et de la réparation des dommages à l'environnement. Cependant, le juge judiciaire sensible aux atteintes écologiques, tente toujours de réparer le préjudice écologique pur sur le fondement du droit commun de la responsabilité civile, dont les règles sont inadaptées à la spécificité de ce préjudice. La prise en compte de l'environnement comme patrimoine commun de l'humanité, l'apport du droit subjectif et fondamental à l'environnement, l'adaptation du régime de la responsabilité civile par la mise en place d'une action environnementale de groupe et l'instauration des dommages-intérêts punitifs, permettent de surpasser les exigences d'un préjudice personnel, certain et direct et de mieux réparer le préjudice écologique pur, par le droit commun de la responsabilité civile. / Environmental damage has always been taken into account from the perspective of anthropocentric damage, that is, damage that affects humans and goods. Today, driven by the ecological ethics defended by the advocates for an ecocentric design for Man's responsibility to environmental goods, most of the doctrine considers environmental damage as purely ecological damage. This concept of purely ecological damage can be defined as the wrongful consequence of damage to a common environmental heritage, a certain threshold of severity and deriving from an act attributable to man. The specificity of the nature of purely ecological damage means that its recognition and compensation are understood with difficulty in environmental responsibility law. Compensation for purely ecological damage is taken into account, at the European level, by the directive of 21 April 2004, which set up an innovative mechanism for environmental responsibility, transposed into France by the law of 01 August 2008, creating an administrative policy for the prevention of, and compensation for, damage to the environment. However, a judge sensitive to ecological damage always tries to compensate for the purely ecological damage on the common law principle of civil responsibility, the rules of which are ill-adapted to the specificity of this type of damage. Taking the environment into account as humanity's common heritage, the input of subjective and fundamental law on the environment, adapting the civil responsibility regime through implementation of a group environmental action and establishing punitive damage compensation all make it possible to go beyond the requirements of certain, direct and personal damages, and to better repair purely ecological damage through common law in civil responsibility.

The presence of pre-packed items contributes toward littering in schools and at home milieu. Most people particularly, and learners’ discard packages of pre-packed wrappers on the ground, thus contribute to littering. This study is intended to help all relevant stakeholders to plan activities that could reduce littering. The study is grounded within the critical theory and living paradigm exploring the effect of household and school practices on learners’ environmental awareness (EA) towards littering. This case study employed action research as a methodology to unpack the problem. Fourteen learners, who are referred to as co-researchers in this study, were selected randomly from seven classes and their parents were inevitably included in the study. Three cycles were conducted with the co-researchers. Five data collection methods are used to collect data. Tables, score total percentages and coding used to analyse data. The results of the study show that environmental activities could be useful within home and school setup and continued practice of environmental activities will in the end conscientise learners towards littering if approached through action research. / Science and Technology Education / M. Ed. (Environmental Education)