Washington University has long touted itself as a leader in energy conservation and sustainability. Many of its programs, however, focus on the negative aspects of an action, rather than the positive. The 2009 ban on the sale of bottled water, the removal of plastic bags from campus markets like Paws & Go and Millbrook Market, and the annual Green Cup challenge are just a few such programs. All three encourage breaking an old, negative habit, rather than building a positive one.

Recently, the Office of Sustainability renamed the Car-Free Month program and refocused the campaign to promote healthy lifestyle choices alongside environmental sustainability. The new program—Active Transportation Month—is an admirable change, as it broadens the definition of what sustainability in the University setting can mean.

Instead of discouraging an environmentally damaging activity, the campaign promotes environmentally sustainable and healthy activities, such as free bike tune-ups. This refocusing recognizes that it is easier to help people create new habits than to break old ones. The hope is that newer, healthier habits will drive out old, negative ones out through a positive feedback loop. It also changes the tone of the relationship between administrators and students from that of an admonishing parent to that of a helpful friend.

In the spirit of Active Transportation Month’s refocusing, it would be beneficial for the University to take a look at how other sustainability programs could be framed in a more encouraging light. The current ban on the sale of water bottles is one such program. Started in 2009, the ban reportedly eliminates 386,000 bottles and 15,000 gallons of oil yearly. Even though the program has a positive effect, it has been framed in a negative light.

The program is described on the University website as just what it is: a ban on a negative action. Taking things away from people, no matter how good one’s intentions, will always be met with backlash. The program, however, has overcome this negative reception and has been proven effective.

It would be beneficial, still, to look at how the program could be refocused with encouraging supplements. In marketing, the war between two products is often won through accessibility. When in campus markets like Paws & Go and Millbrook Market, students without a reusable water bottle may choose to buy more accessible (and less nutritional) sodas and other bottled drinks. Instead, campus markets could sell cheap, effective water bottles on-site, which would actively encourage healthier habits while potentially cutting down on bottled-drink consumption.

A similar approach could be applied to the ban on plastic bags in campus markets. Currently, there are no options for carrying large quantities of food out of campus markets except backpacks and the limits of one’s own arms. Providing low-cost, reusable grocery bags in the same way that Whole Foods and other grocery chains do would be an active, positively minded solution to the problem. Students could also be given a small discount, similar to Eco To-Go, for bringing back their shopping bags each trip.

Small, practical changes like these create positive feedback loops, wherein the user is rewarded for their actions, rather than admonished. A positively focused program will do wonders compared to a stern warning against even the most environmentally damaging actions.