การประเมินความพึงพอใจของชุมชนต่อการใช้ข้อมูล GIS ในการจัดการทรัพยากรธรรมชาติและวิเคราะห์พื้นที่เสี่ยงภัย: กรณีศึกษาอำเภอสังขละ จังหวัดกาญจนบุรี

Thanapat  Wirit; Phuchong  Wongkerd; Ronachai  Bampenyu; Thut  Katikavongkhachori

doi:10.60027/iarj.2025.284186

Authors

Thanapat Wirit Western University https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0120-1371
Phuchong Wongkerd Western University https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3398-9721
Ronachai Bampenyu Western University https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1678-6072
Thut Katikavongkhachori Western University https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1712-0303

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.60027/iarj.2025.284186

Keywords:

Ho Community Satisfaction, Geographic Information System, Natural Resource Management, Hazard Risk Analysis

Abstract

Background and Aims: GIS data is essential for managing natural resources since it allows for in-depth spatial analysis for the sustainable use of resources, including land, water, and forests. It also supports efficient planning and disaster mitigation by assisting in the identification and analysis of risky regions such as flood zones, landslides, or wildfires. This study aims to 1) examine community awareness and understanding of the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) data for hazard risk analysis, 2) assess community satisfaction in Sangkhla District, Kanchanaburi Province, with the use of GIS data for natural resource management, and 3) 3) analyze the factors affecting the community's satisfaction with the use of GIS data for natural resource management and disaster risk reduction.

Methodology: The sample group for this research consists of 300 residents living in the target area of Sangkhla District, Kanchanaburi Province. A survey questionnaire is used as the data collection instrument, and the collected data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation, and percentage.

Results: The results revealed that the community demonstrated a good level of awareness and understanding regarding the use of GIS data, particularly in hazard risk analysis for issues such as floods and landslides, which enabled effective disaster preparedness. Additionally, the community exhibited a high level of satisfaction with the use of GIS data for natural resource management, with an overall satisfaction mean score of 4.125, indicating a "very good" level. The highest-rated factor was the perceived benefits of GIS, with a mean score of 4.5, reflecting its effectiveness in supporting resource management and disaster preparedness. The analysis of factors influencing satisfaction indicated that data quality and ease of understanding significantly affected community satisfaction. However, data accessibility requires further improvement to enhance convenience and coverage. This study highlights the importance of developing GIS systems that are user-friendly and accessible while providing quality data to meet the community's needs effectively and sustainably.

Conclusion: According to the survey, the community gave the use of GIS data for hazard risk assessments and natural resource management excellent marks for perceived benefits and effectiveness. To guarantee wider uptake and long-lasting effects, it is still crucial to enhance data usability and accessibility.

References

Al-Kodmany, K. (2002). Visualization tools and methods in community planning: From freehand sketches to virtual reality.Journal of Planning Literature, 17(2), 189-211.

Brown, G., Reed, P., & Harris, C. C. (2009). Effects of place attachment on residents' attitudes toward proposed land use changes.Society & Natural Resources, 15(1), 1-24.

Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation. (2022). Annual report on disaster management in Thailand. Bangkok: Ministry of Interior.

Elwood, S. (2006). Negotiating participatory ethics in the middle ground: The case of PPGIS. Journal of Geography, 105(3), 129-139.

Goodchild, M. F. (2009). Geographic information systems and science: Today and tomorrow. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 23(1), 3-20.

Kingston, R., Carver, S., Evans, A., & Turton, I. (2000). Web-based public participation geographical information systems: An aid to local environmental decision-making. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 24(2), 109-125.

Longley, P. A., Goodchild, M. F., Maguire, D. J., & Rhind, D. W. (2015).Geographic information systems and science (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Morrow, B. H. (1999). Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters, 23(1), 1-18.

Nobre, C. A., Marengo, J. A., & Seluchi, M. E. (2011). Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in South American cities. Sustainability, 3(1), 5-8.

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460-469.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.

Sieber, R. E. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491-507.