Development of Product Innovation from Mangrove Resources to Promote Community Economy: A Case Study of Khlong Hua Chak Community, Bang Pakong Subdistrict, Bang Pakong District, Chachoengsao Province
Keywords:
Innovation, Mangrove forests, Mangrove products, Community participationAbstract
This research article aims to investigate the process of rehabilitating degraded mangrove forests and the development of community products derived from mangrove resources through a participatory approach. The study adopts a qualitative research design, employing focus group discussions and in-depth interviews as research instruments. The key informants were purposively selected, comprising a total of 15 participants. Data were analyzed using content analysis and were subsequently categorized into descriptive themes.
The findings indicate that the mangrove forest rehabilitation project in the vicinity of Phra Pimol Senee School (Phrom Hongsakul) achieved success through the integration of local wisdom with scientific knowledge. The rehabilitation process followed four key steps: 1) shared conceptualization, 2) knowledge construction, 3) implementation, and 4) monitoring and evaluation. Core activities included the excavation of small drainage canals (locally known as khlong sai kai), the production of microbial fermented water, and the determination of suitable planting seasons, all of which contributed to the sustainable recovery of the local ecosystem. Furthermore, the community leveraged this success to develop innovative community products, such as the pluchea Indica Herb (Three Buddies Khlu tea) and fish sauce marinated sesarma mangrove crabs. These products were developed by combining local knowledge with scientific principles of food processing, preservation, and quality control. The initiative generated supplementary income for the Khlong Hua Chak Mangrove Seedling Bank Community Enterprise. In 2023, the sales of the pluchea indica herbal tea and the fish sauce marinated sesarma mangrove crabs yielded a total community income of 35,690 baht, while also promoting the conservation of natural and cultural capital within the community.
The study identified four key success factors: 1) the establishment of a communal learning space; 2) the integration of local wisdom with scientific knowledge; 3) the development of value-added products; and 4) the transformation from a vulnerable community to a sustainable, self-reliant model community. This research exemplifies the utilization of local resources to foster grassroots economic development in a tangible manner, consistent with the principles of the BCG Economy Model.
References
โครงการพลังชุมชนและนวัตกรรมเพื่อความยั่งยืน. (2567). รายงานผลการดำเนินงานโครงการพลังชุมชนและนวัตกรรมเพื่อความยั่งยืน พ.ศ. 2564-2566. ปทุมธานี: วิทยาลัยโลกคดีศึกษา มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์.
สำนักงานนวัตกรรมแห่งชาติ. (2550). แผนพัฒนานวัตกรรมแห่งชาติ พ.ศ. 2550–2554. กรุงเทพมหานคร: สำนักงานนวัตกรรมแห่งชาติ (องค์การมหาชน).
สำนักงานนวัตกรรมแห่งชาติ. (2550). แผนพัฒนาวิทยาศาสตร์ เทคโนโลยี และนวัตกรรมแห่งชาติ. กรุงเทพมหานคร: สำนักงานนวัตกรรมแห่งชาติ (องค์การมหาชน).
สำนักงานสภาพัฒนาการเศรษฐกิจและสังคมแห่งชาติ. (2561). ยุทธศาสตร์ชาติ พ.ศ. 2561–2580. กรุงเทพมหานคร: สำนักงานเลขานุการของคณะกรรมการยุทธศาสตร์ชาติ, สำนักงานคณะกรรมการพัฒนาการเศรษฐกิจและสังคมแห่งชาติ.
สำนักงานสภาพัฒนาการเศรษฐกิจและสังคมแห่งชาติ. (2564). รายงานโมเดลเศรษฐกิจ BCG ในบริบทไทย. สืบค้น 10 กันยายน 2567, จาก https://www.bcg.in.th/bcg-action-plan/
Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm. World Development. 22(10), 1437-1454.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gopalakrishnan, S. & Bierly, P. (1997). Organizational Innovation and Strategic Choices: A Knowledge Based View. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings.
Gopalakrishnan, S., & Bierly, P. E. (1997). The Impact of Organizational Context and Competence on Innovation. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. 14(3–4), 193–222.
Gupta, A. K., Sinha, R., & Koradia, D. (2003). Mobilizing Grassroots’ Technological Innovations and Traditional Knowledge. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues. 3(1), 104–114.
Gupta, A. K., Sinha, R., Koradia, D., Patel, R., Parmar, M., and Rohit, P. (2003). Mobilizinggrassroots' technological innovations and traditional knowledge, values and institutions: articulating social and ethical capital. Futures. 35(1), 975-987.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., & Sanders, B. (2007). Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. The Young Foundation. Retrieved from https://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Social-Innovation-what-it-is-why-it-matters-how-it-can-be-accelerated-March-2007.pdf
Pretty, J. N. (1995). Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture. World Development. 23(8), 1247–1263.
Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots Innovations for Sustainable Development: Towards a New Research and Policy Agenda. Environmental Politics. 16(4), 584–603.
Thompson, V.A. (1965). Bureaucracy and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly. 10(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391646
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of MCU Social Development

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