Sir – A place that is festooned with rubbish makes people feel uneasy. A series of experiments conducted in the USA and designed to discover if signs of vandalism, litter and low-level law-breaking could change the way people behave found that they could do so.

The broken windows theory, as Dr Kelling and his colleague James Wilson later called the idea, proved that observing disorder can have a psychological effect on people.

In the late 1980s George Kelling, a former probation officer, initiated what became a vigorous campaign to remove graffiti from New York City's subway system, which was followed by a reduction in petty crime. This idea also under-pinned the zero tolerance which Rudy Giuliani subsequently brought to the city's streets when he became mayor.

Dr Kelling's theory takes its name from the observation that a few broken windows in an empty building quickly lead to more smashed panes, more vandalism and eventually to break-ins.

The tendency for people to behave in a particular way can be strengthened or weakened depending on what they observe others to be doing. The researchers' conclusion is that one example of disorder, like littering, can indeed encourage another, like stealing.

The message for policy-makers and police officers is that clearing littering promptly could help fight the spread of crime. The same principle applies to maintaining open spaces in a well cared for way.

For several years prior to 2004, the Beacon Hill community had experienced anti-social behaviour from a few wayward youths although it is not within the scope of this paper to discuss why this situation had arisen since it was endemic throughout the country at the time.

However, one particular observation of how youngsters were behaving took place over a series of weeks at Woodcock Green in the centre of Beacon Hill village. The public space had become overgrown with bramble and it attracted littering, loitering and dog fouling.

Late into the evenings during summer and winter months, youths would loiter by the telephone box and the adjacent seat but with no particular intent to undertake mischief. Occasionally, boredom would get the better of them and mischief would set in but otherwise anti-social behaviour was confined to littering the area and minor vandalism to the telephone box.

In 2005, the community made a concerted effort to reclaim Woodcock Green as a village green despite considerable resistance from the local borough council who owned the land. As a result of volunteer effort, supplemented by ground clearance work by a local contractor, paid for initially from the mayor's allowance, a green was re-established and some four years later it has become well established.

Importantly, loitering by youngsters, dog fouling and littering have halted completely. The telephone box has been washed and all the green algae removed and it hasn't been vandalised since the telephone has been back in working order. A rubbish bin has been placed beside the seat and no litter accrues any longer. People of all ages, especially youngsters, do come and sit for awhile to eat a snack bought from the shop opposite or just to chat with friends or to make the occasional telephone call (more often than not a text!).

One may conclude from this that if an area is kept clean and tidy, if public telephone kiosks are maintained and equipment is provided for the disposal of litter and dog waste, people will respond positively to these environment improvements.

It is, of course, not difficult to consume huge sums of public money in order to maintain public spaces and the moment a problem occurs to deploy a resource to clear up the mess, cut back the invading undergrowth or to repair damage to seats or other equipment.

The challenge is to deploy resources in such a way as to engage with the community at the same time and thus avoid being perceived as authoritarian and utilitarian; or at worst ineffective.

The inclination to volunteer to help others is deeply ingrained in the human psyche. It makes itself evident in times of crisis, as when terrorists attacked the London Underground or when natural disasters like flooding paralysed communities. But communities should not have to wait for a terrorist strike or a natural disaster to occur before getting to know their neighbours who, more often than not, have been strangers up until that point.

Getting together with neighbours to solve a problem or to make an improvement is natural behaviour. It has reduced dramatically in modern society because of other pressures that bear down on people and cause communities to fragment. As we enter a period of stringent economic restraint when the public will demand proof of value for money in every nook and cranny of public finances, there's an opportunity to be innovative and to build community cohesion at the same time.

The scope for establishing social enterprise companies that will deliver a community service; provide education and training; create short term employment for those who have lost their jobs and deliver a real benefit to the nation, are only as limited as the imagination of those whose responsibility it is to think outside the box and to produce strategies that will defeat recession. This sort of experience would benefit some bankers hugely who may have forgotten what an honest day's graft involves.

Now is the time when local politicians should use the experience of experts within the ranks of their elected representatives, to create business plans to support such enterprises. They should not be put off by well-meaning local government officers who may suggest this sort of thing is far too difficult to achieve, may raise Health & Safety issues and may even contravene the Human Rights Act 1988.

Where is the voice of local leadership at this time?

Michael Dover, Lindens, Hindhead