{"p"=>"This study examines how the public assesses blameworthiness and harm in cases of manure pollution where nature, rather than humans or animals, is the primary victim. Although manure-related environmental damage is a longstanding and politically charged issue in the Netherlands, little is known about how lay audiences judge such acts or the conditions that shape these evaluations. Using a balanced experimental vignette design (N = 240), we manipulated farmer intent (intentional versus negligent), severity of ecological damage, recovery time, and the presence of an apology. Respondents rated the farmer’s blameworthiness and reflected on appropriate sanctions through both closed and open-ended questions. Quantitative analyses show that intentional spills are judged significantly more blameworthy than negligent ones, while differences between levels of ecological harm are modest. Age and urbanization independently predict stricter judgments, with younger and urban respondents assigning more blame. Gender effects were absent. Qualitative analyses reveal how respondents negotiate responsibility, often weighing farmer circumstances, regulatory pressures, and perceived governmental response. Views on environmental harm diverged sharply along urban–rural lines, with some rural respondents questioning whether manure is harmful at all. Sanction preferences were highly nuanced: while some endorsed the €20,000 fine, many saw it as excessive, disproportionate, or ineffective, favouring alternatives such as license reviews or community service aimed at environmental restoration. Overall, the findings indicate that public perceptions of environmental crime are more influenced by perceived intent and socio-cultural background than by the severity of ecological damage. The study advances understanding of how people judge wrongdoing when nature itself is positioned as the victim and highlights implications for environmental enforcement, legitimacy, and policy."}