Jul 7, 2008
Social Marketing Vs. Environmental Education
Social Marketing is the systematic application of marketing techniques to achieve specific behavioral goals for a social good (i.e. recycling, energy use, etc.) Environmental education on the other hand develops knowledge, awareness, attitudes, skills, and environmentally responsible behavior. It teaches people how to think, not what what to think. How and when do you use social marketing or environmental education? When is each type of campaign or program beneficial?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The "Social Marketing Vs. Environmental Education" post sparks interest and curiosity to compare these two techniques. As I examined the processes, I was struck by their initial and significant similarities. How these two ideas have evolved determine their differences.
To begin, both techniques stem from the same decade. Stated simply, the social marketing term began during the 1970s by renowned professors Philip Kotler and Gerald Zaltman who believed that some commercial marketing principles could be applied to “sell” ideas, attitudes, or behaviors. They believed this approach could/would influence social behaviors with the benefit going to the “consumer” rather than the marketer.
Meanwhile, in 1977, the Tbilisi Declaration identified and defined environmental education as a “…learning process to increase people’s knowledge and awareness about the environment…and foster attitudes, motivations, and commitments to make informed decisions and take responsible action” (UNESCO conference in Georgia, USSR).
The objectives of both techniques involve communication methods to expand knowledge, increase awareness, empower action, and endorse positive social outcomes.
Since its inception, the social marketing process has emerged as a complex application. It thrives on in-depth learning of perceptions and lifestyles of the targeted population and then offers methods with positive outcomes for the population to implement. Examples of social marketing applications exist within public health systems on local, national, and even international levels. Topics that incorporate social marketing tools are: birth control method programs, smoking cessation support groups, and well-being campaigns. Colorado Community Health Network (CCHN) is one example of an agency that would utilize social marketing tools to address primary health care concerns while providing family-wellness educational opportunities for specific underserved populations.
Since environmental education’s beginning and with passage of the National Environmental Education Act (1990), EE programs have fluctuated between periods of applaud and broad acceptance to “gloom and doom” and discounted analysis, as a result of changing funding and prevalent mind-sets. However, EE continues to exist primarily as dynamic interdisciplinary programs within academic (classrooms) and non-formal (nature centers) venues as well as community organizations, and more recently “green” businesses. Colorado Alliance for Environmental Education (CAEE) provides the infrastructure for the EE community throughout the state and connects, educates, and empowers audiences/people to make responsible decisions about aspects of their natural world, the built environment, and human needs.
Social marketing and environmental education are techniques that emphasize learning through communication. The two approaches originated and developed with objectives of increased awareness and decision-making capabilities for their audiences. While both enable positive results, neither would exist without careful program development and responsible promotion and policy. Invariably, venues that incorporate social marketing techniques or environmental education programs could not proceed without the interest and input of sponsorships, partnerships, and volunteerism. I believe that both will continue to experience the support/rejection flow and ebb pattern, but both are critical for our society.
Post a Comment