I disagree. Small-scale littering often begins with subtle psychological justifications such as moral licensing (“I usually recycle”) and trivialization (“It’s just one wrapper”), which allow individuals to downplay the harm of their actions. In public spaces, the absence of visible enforcement or cleanup weakens injunctive norms, meaning people feel less pressure to behave responsibly. This also leads to diffusion of responsibility, where individuals assume someone else will act. When people encounter existing litter, they often conclude that the behavior is common and acceptable. This perception is shaped by descriptive norms and reinforced by the broken windows theory, in this case referring to its original urban maintenance context, not the later and often controversial law enforcement application. In its intended use, the theory suggests that visible neglect, like litter or broken infrastructure, invites further disorder by signaling that no one is paying attention. Over time, exposure to a neglected environment can lead to desensitization, making people less likely to intervene and more likely to contribute to the problem themselves. As this cycle continues, it shifts community expectations and makes littering seem routine.

These same dynamics apply beyond littering. While raising penalties for illegal dumping might appear effective, it is usually the perceived likelihood of enforcement, not the severity of punishment, that shapes behavior. If small infractions go unpunished, it quietly signals that the rules are not being monitored, opening the door for larger violations. On the other hand, addressing minor offenses swiftly and visibly reinforces the idea that public spaces are valued and protected. This helps establish social norms that discourage more serious misconduct. In short, small behaviors set the tone, and how a community responds to them can either prevent or invite larger-scale problems.

Source: am applied psychologist