Creative Community Development and the Management of Karen Ethnic Cultural Protection Areas for Enhancing Quality of Life and Community Economic Development
Keywords:
Creative Community, Cultural Protection Area, Grassroots EconomyAbstract
This research aimed to (1) examine and analyze the management potential of cultural protection areas of the Karen ethnic community in Ban Phu Muen; (2) develop community capacity and establish a creative model for managing cultural protection areas to enhance the grassroots economy through participatory processes; and (3) generate a prototype body of knowledge on creative communities, along with policy recommendations and participatory action plans. This study employed a qualitative research design using a Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach. Key informants consisted of 32 participants, selected through purposive sampling and expanded via snowball sampling techniques. Research instruments included document analysis, in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, participant observation, and participatory workshops with community stakeholders. Data were analyzed using content analysis and critical discourse analysis.
The findings revealed that the Karen community in Ban Phu Muen possesses strong potential for managing cultural protection areas based on an eco-cultural system, where traditions, beliefs, and community norms function as mechanisms for regulating resource use in a balanced manner. Community capacity development led to the establishment of a creative community model encompassing three dimensions: cultural heritage management, natural resource management, and quality of life and grassroots economic development, all of which are systematically integrated across cultural, ecological, and economic domains. Furthermore, the synthesis of knowledge resulted in an eco-cultural governance model for managing cultural protection areas that harmoniously links people, forests, and the local economy. Policy recommendations include the development of legal frameworks supporting cultural protection areas, the establishment of financial support funds, and the integration of such areas into local development plans to strengthen economic, social, and quality-of-life sustainability within the community.
References
คณะรัฐมนตรี. (2553). มติคณะรัฐมนตรี วันที่ 3 สิงหาคม 2553 เรื่อง แนวนโยบายในการฟื้นฟูวิถีชีวิตชาวกะเหรี่ยง. กรุงเทพฯ: สำนักเลขาธิการคณะรัฐมนตรี.
วรวิทย์ นพแก้ว และคณะ. (2563). รายงานการจัดทำพื้นที่คุ้มครองทางวัฒนธรรมชุมชนกะเหรี่ยงบ้านภูเหม็น ตำบลทองหลาง อำเภอห้วยคต จังหวัดอุทัยธานี. ม.ป.ท. (เอกสารอัดสำเนา).
สมเกียรติ ตั้งนโม. (2558). สิทธิชุมชนกับการจัดการทรัพยากรธรรมชาติในสังคมไทย. วารสารสังคมศาสตร์, 27(2), 1–28.
สฤณี อาชวานันทกุล. (2560). เศรษฐกิจชุมชนกับความยั่งยืนทางนิเวศ. กรุงเทพฯ: มูลนิธิเพื่อผู้บริโภค.
อานันท์ กาญจนพันธุ์. (2544). ป่า ชุมชน และวัฒนธรรม: บทเรียนจากสังคมชาติพันธุ์. เชียงใหม่: ศูนย์ศึกษาเศรษฐศาสตร์การเมือง คณะสังคมศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม่.
อานันท์ กาญจนพันธุ์. (2556). ความรู้ว่าด้วยป่า: อำนาจ ความจริง และการเมืองของการอนุรักษ์. เชียงใหม่: ศูนย์มานุษยวิทยาสิรินธร.
Benda-Beckmann, F. von, Benda-Beckmann, K. von. & Griffiths, A. (Eds.). (2009). Rules of law and laws of ruling: On the governance of law. Ashgate.
Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred ecology. 3rd ed. Routledge.
Blaikie, P. & Brookfield, H. (1987). Land degradation and society. Methuen.
Bryant, R. L. & Bailey, S. (1997). Third World political ecology. Routledge.
Bryant, R. L. (1998). Power, knowledge and political ecology in the Third World: A review. Progress in Physical Geography, 22(1), 79–94.
Cairns, M. F. (Ed.). (2015). Shifting cultivation and environmental change: Indigenous people, agriculture and forest conservation. Routledge.
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press.
Escobar, A. (1998). Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. Journal of Political Ecology, 5(1), 53–82.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon. & P. Miller (Eds.). The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality. (pp. 87–104). University of Chicago Press.
Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking recognition. New Left Review, 3, 107–120.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
Goldman, M. (2001). Constructing an environmental state: Eco-governmentality and other transnational practices of a “green” World Bank. Social Problems, 48(4), 499–523.
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge.
Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
Peluso, N. L. & Watts, M. (Eds.). (2001). Violent environments. Cornell University Press.
Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Farrar & Rinehart.
Rappaport, R. A. (1999). Ritual and religion in the making of humanity. Cambridge University Press.
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper 72. Institute of Development Studies.
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.
Vandergeest, P. & Peluso, N. L. (1995). Territorialization and state power in Thailand. Theory and Society, 24(3), 385–426.
Vandergeest, P. (2003). Racialization and citizenship in Thai forest politics. Society & Natural Resources, 16(1), 19–37.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Peace Periscope
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
