การพัฒนาทรัพยากรท้องถิ่นเพื่อสร้างมูลค่าเพิ่มทางเศรษฐกิจ : กรณีศึกษาตำบลตากูก อำเภอเขวาสินรินทร์ จังหวัดสุรินทร์ Development of Local Resources for Economic Value Added : A Case Study of Takook Subdistrict, Khwao Sinarin District, Surin Province
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14456/gjl.2026.25Keywords:
Local Resource, Economics Value added, Participatory Action Research, Cost–Benefit Analysis, Grassroots EconomyAbstract
This research entitled “Development of Local Resources for Economic Value Added : A Case Study of Takook Subdistrict, Khwao Sinarin District, Surin Province” aimed to: (1) analyze the potential of local resources in Takook Subdistrict, Khwao Sinarin District, Surin Province; (2) develop community products from local resources through participatory community processes and enhance their commercial competitiveness; (3) assess the economic feasibility of the developed products using Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA); and (4) evaluate the outcomes of community product development in terms of household income changes and community strengthening. The research utilized a mixed-methods approach combined with Participatory Action Research (PAR) as the fundamental framework driving the development activities. A total of 35 participants were intentionally chosen from stakeholders involved in local resource use, comprising community entrepreneurs, leaders, local knowledge experts, and representatives from households in Takook Subdistrict. Participants were actively Involved in every phase of the PAR method, including analyzing resource potential, planning, product development and testing, evaluation, and shared reflection. Data collection tools included thorough interviews, group discussions, surveys, and forms for recording product cost-benefit data. These tools were validated through the Index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC ≥ 0.76) and exhibited strong reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.87. Qualitative information was analyzed via thematic content analysis, and triangulation methods were used, while quantitative information was processed using descriptive statistics, paired samples t-test, and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). A discount rate of 7% annually was implemented based on yields from Thai government bonds and fixed deposit interest rates from commercial banks as of fiscal year 2024. The results indicated that mulberry leaves and local herbs showed the most Potential for product development, achieving a high overall potential rating ( = 4.00, S.D. = 0.62). The PAR process was highly effective in product development (
= 4.25, S.D.=0.56), illustrating that community involvement is essential for establishing location-specific products. The added economic value analysis revealed that processing of these products amplified the worth of raw materials by about five to six times. When compared to similar market offerings, community products had reduced production expenses owing to the benefits of direct access to local materials. The findings from the CBA demonstrated that both products were economically viable, with benefit-cost ratios exceeding one (BCR = 1.80 and 1.78, respectively). Household income rose by 16%, and the paired samples t-test validated that the income after development was significantly greater than the income before development (t = 5.89, p < 0.01). Significantly, the rise in household earnings cannot be credited solely to enhanced value-added processing; it stemmed from the combination of three interconnected factors: generating value through processing, collaborative efforts that minimized unit expenses and enhanced negotiating power, and the social capital developed through the PAR process, which encouraged trust and effective division of labor among members of the community. The research provides fresh empirical data illustrating that PAR serves not only as a method for product development but also as a tool for creating production benchmarks. Furthermore, the sustainable competitive edge of Takook community products is rooted in the community's governance over the supply chain of raw materials, resulting in production costs that are considerably lower than market options. The results indicate that governmental bodies and local administrative entities should advocate for the development of resource-oriented products while also providing assistance for quality certification, identity-centered branding, and economic networking to enhance grassroots economies and promote long-term sustainable community growth.
Downloads
References
นพรัตน์ ไชยชนะ. (2568). การพัฒนาผลิตภัณฑ์จากภูมิปัญญาท้องถิ่นเพื่อประสิทธิภาพทางการจัดการชุมชน บ้านทุ่งนางครวญ ตำบลชะแล อำเภอทองผาภูมิ จังหวัดกาญจนบุรี. วารสารวิชาการและวิจัยสังคมศาสตร์, 20(2), 43-58. https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/JSSRA/article/view/276710/185987
ประภาพร บุญปลอด, นวรัตน์ นิธิชัยอนันต์, เกศศิริ นวลใยสวรรค์, ระเบียบ วุฒิปิยพงศ์, และสุรีย์ฉาย สุคันธรัต. (2567). ศักยภาพทุนทรัพยากร วัฒนธรรมชุมชน เพื่อเพิ่มมูลค่าเศรษฐกิจชุมชนสร้างสรรค์บนฐานทรัพยากรท้องถิ่นในพื้นที่ชุมชนชายแดนไทย-กัมพูชา จังหวัดสุรินทร์. วารสารการบริหารการปกครองและนวัตกรรมท้องถิ่น, 8(3), 205-220. https://doi.org/10.14456/jlgisrru.2024.60.
วรพงศ์ แสงผัด, เพ็ญศรี ฉิรินัง, วรเดช จันทรศร, และวิพร เกตุแก้ว (2566). แนวทางการสร้างมูลค่าเพิ่มให้ผลิตภัณฑ์สินค้าชุมชนท้องถิ่นไทย. วารสารพัฒนาการเรียนรู้สมัยใหม่, 9(6), 439-448. https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jomld/article/view/268139/184040
สาทินี วัฒนกิจ, รอฮานา แวดอเลาะ, ณัฐชนา นวลยัง, และธนากรณ์ ดำสุด (2567). การใช้ประโยชน์จากทรัพยากรท้องถิ่น เพื่อสร้างมูลค่าและเพิ่มมูลค่าผลิตภัณฑ์ชุมชนผ่านกลไกการเรียนรู้และนวัตกรรม : กรณีศึกษาชุมชนรำแดง จังหวัดสงขลา.วารสารปาริชาต, 37(3) ,621-635. https://doi.org/10.55164/pactj.v37i3.270127
สำนักงานสภาพัฒนาการเศรษฐกิจและสังคมแห่งชาติ. (2564). แผนพัฒนาเศรษฐกิจและสังคมแห่งชาติ ฉบับที่ 13. https://www.nesdc.go.th/the-national-economic-and-social-development-plan/
Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (2018). Cost-benefit analysis: Concepts and practice (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235594
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Cohen, J. M., & Uphoff, N. T. (1981). Rural Development Participation: Concept and Measure for Project Design Implementation and Evaluation: Rural Development Committee Center for international Studies. New York: Cornell University Press.
Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Analysis of experience. World Development, 22(9), 1253–1268. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(94)90003-5.
Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290500049805
Humphrey, J., & Schmitz, H. (2002). How does insertion in global value chains affect upgrading in industrial clusters. Regional Studies, 36(9), 1017–1027. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340022000022198
Kaplinsky, R., & Morris, M. (2001). A handbook for value chain research. International Development Research Centre (IDRC).
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
OECD. (2018). Enhancing the contributions of SMEs in a global and digitalised economy. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264300385-en
OECD. (2020). Job Creation and Local Economic Development 2020 : Rebuilding Better, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b02b2f39-en
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press.
Pretty, J. N. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247–1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(95)00046-F.
Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon and Schuster, New York.http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/358916.361990.
Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management : A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.
Schumacher, E.F (1973). Small Is Beautiful. A Study of Economics As If People Mattered. London: Blond & Briggs.
Schmitz, H. (2005). Value Chain Analysis for Policy-Makers and Practitioners, Geneva: International Labour Office.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Suwanmaneepong, S., Kerdsriserm, C., Lepcha, N., Cavite, H. J., & Llones, C. A. (2024). Participatory value chain development: Insights from community-based enterprise in rural Thailand. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 22(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2024.2371703. (In Thai)
UNIDO.(2011). Industrial development report 2011: Industrial energy efficiency for sustainable wealth creation. United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
World Bank. (2020). Poverty and shared prosperity 2020: Reversals of fortune. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1602-4.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Governance Journal, Kalasin University

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.




