The Development of Rusamilae Subdistrict Municipality toward Smart Local Governance: Problems, Challenges, and Strategic Approaches for Strengthening Digital Local Administration
Keywords:
Digital Local Governance, Smart Municipality, Public Participation, Rusamilae Subdistrict MunicipalityAbstract
This research article aims to (1) examine the issues and barriers in developing Rusamilae Subdistrict Municipality, Pattani Province, toward becoming a “Smart Local Governance,” and (2) propose strategic approaches to enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of digital local administration. A mixed-methods research design was employed. The study involved two groups of participants: (1) thirteen municipal officers selected through purposive sampling, and (2) 450 residents within the municipality’s jurisdiction, selected through multi-stage random sampling. Data were collected between January and March 2025 through interviews and questionnaires. The findings reveal that major challenges include limited public access to digital services, insufficient diversity of communication platforms—mainly restricted to the municipal website and Facebook page—and low digital literacy among residents. The results further indicate that the municipality should emphasize user-centered design of digital platforms, strengthen public communication and digital-literacy training across all population groups, and build the technological competencies of municipal personnel. These measures are expected to facilitate the transition of Rusamilae Municipality toward a sustainable and inclusive model of smart local governance.
References
กระทรวงดิจิทัลเพื่อเศรษฐกิจและสังคม. (2561). แผนพัฒนาดิจิทัลเพื่อเศรษฐกิจและสังคม พ.ศ. 2561–2580. กรุงเทพฯ: สำนักงานคณะกรรมการดิจิทัลเพื่อเศรษฐกิจและสังคมแห่งชาติ.
United Nations. (2022). E-Government survey 2022: The future of digital government. UN DESA.
สำนักงานพัฒนารัฐบาลดิจิทัล (องค์การมหาชน). (2562). โครงการฝึกอบรมเพื่อพัฒนาทักษะด้านเทคโนโลยีดิจิทัลและการประชาสัมพันธ์ในยุคดิจิทัลแก่ข้าราชการ. https://www.dga.or.th/our-activities/training-seminar/42540/
Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Geyer, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence and the public sector Applications and challenges. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(7), 596-615. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1498103.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. A. (2018). Digital government and public Management research: Finding the crossroads. Public Management Review, 20(5), 633-646. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181.
สำนักงานพัฒนารัฐบาลดิจิทัล (องค์การมหาชน). (2563-2565). การสร้างรัฐบาลดิจิทัล. https://www.dga.or.th/policy-standard/policy-regulation/dga-019/dga-024/
World Bank. (2020). World development report 2020: Digital dividends. World Bank Publications.
OECD. (2019). Digital government review of Brazil: Towards the digital transformation of The public sector. OECD Publishing.
Heeks, R. (2002). eGovernment in Africa: Promise and practice. Information Polity, 7(2-3), 97-114.
Ndou, V. (2004). E–government for developing countries: Opportunities and challenges. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 18(1), 1-24.
Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Smart city as urban innovation: Focusing on management, policy, and context. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 185-194). ACM.
Choi, T., Lee, G., & Pak, J. (2020). Smart city governance in developing countries: Lessons from Korea. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), 101457.
Anthopoulos, L. (2017). Understanding smart cities: A tool for smart government or an industrial trick? Springer.
United Nations. (2020). E-Government survey 2020: Digital government in the decade of action for sustainable development. UN DESA.
สถาบันพระปกเกล้า. (2563). ธรรมาภิบาลกับการมีส่วนร่วมของประชาชนในยุคดิจิทัล. กรุงเทพฯ: สถาบันพระปกเกล้า.
Misuraca, G., van Noordt, C., & Boukli, A. (2021). AI watch: AI in public services. Publications Office of the European Union.
Chatfield, A. T., & Reddick, C. G. (2018). Smart city implementation through shared vision of social innovation for environmental sustainability: A case study of Kitakyushu, Japan. Sustainability, 10(1), 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010062.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
Rovinelli, R. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1977). On the use of content specialists in the assessment of content validity of items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37(3), 463-468.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Helbig, N. (2016). Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the Digital Government Research Center. Information Polity, 21(2), 105-117.
European Commission. (2016). EU eGovernment action plan 2016-2020. https://ec.europa.eu.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224.
Wampler, B. (2012). Participatory budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, cooperation, and accountability. Penn State University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 PAAT Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
