Main Article Content
The objectives of this research were 1) to study the utilization process of teak in the context of community product designs and 2) to transfer knowledges on the utilization of teak in the context of community product designs. The researchers used Participatory Action Research Methodology (PAR) and data were collected by using semi-structured interview on the utilization of teak. We collected data by field visiting, observation, and interview with the sample groups. We studied from various documentaries to summarize and analyze the qualitative data in a description. The researchers visited the community in the area of Muang Kao Sub-district, Muang District, Sukhothai Province where is a community that lives around the World Heritage site in the Sukhothai Historical Park. There are many communities that produces products from wood in many communities and varieties of products.
The results of studying were found that government agency wanted to promote the community for having a sustainable career which relying on their own aptitudes. Therefore, we studied and found the samples which can be divided into five groups of the teak products; 1. Teak furniture group, 2. Tree roots furniture group, 3. Wooden Buddha group, 4. Home decoration group, and 5. Souvenir group. However, we can design the products transferring knowledges three product groups of them: teak furniture group, home decoration group, and the souvenir group. Due to the root furniture group and wooden buddha group, they were unable to characterize the materials. Moreover, it also depended on the imagination and craftsman skills. The products that we designed were shoes rack furniture, folding table, and four types of lamps. We set up a forum to transfer the knowledges and concluded that the community must use the teak to the greatest benefit. Because of the most value adding to the local identity, it should be integrated between communities to use other types of products and make them together for adding value.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
"The opinions and contents including the words in papers are responsibility by the authors."
"ข้อคิดเห็น เนื้อหา รวมทั้งการใช้ภาษาในบทความถือเป็นความรับผิดชอบของผู้เขียน"
Peters, S. (2007). Human and Design. Bangkok: Odeone Store. 2-4. (in Thai)
Saributr, U., Saributr, A., & Petsinchorn, A. (2017). “Community Product Design from Teak Wood in World Heritage Site Sukhothai Province.” DRLE 2017 Proceeding. 7, 444-452. (in Thai)
Saributr, U., & Peters, S. (2012). “Design Research for Enabling Sustainable Community Development.” Humanities and Social Sciences Review. 1(2), 335-339.
Saributr, U., Aekwuttiwongsa, S., Peters, S., & Petsinchorn, A. (2014). “Participatory Design Research Strategies and Approaches for Cultural Heritage Safeguarding: a Case Study of Communities in World Heritage Sites in Sukhothai Province.” DRLE 2014 Proceeding. 4, 353-362. (in Thai)
Cha-umngarm, W. (2015). “Futher Research into the Lotus-bud Style Chedi of Thailand.” Damrong Journal. 14(1), 149-168. (in Thai)
Walker, S. (1998). “Experiments in Sustainable Product Design.” The Journal of Sustainable Product Design. 7, 41-50.
Charter, M., & Tischner, U. (2001). Sustainable Solution: Developing Products and Services for the Future. Sheffield. UK: Greenleaf Publishing. 118-138.
Wanichakorn, A. (2016). Local Product Design. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press. 57-61. (in Thai)