Designing Citizen Science in Thailand: A Process Evaluation of a Program in a Contested Mining Context
1
Issued Date
2026-01-01
Resource Type
eISSN
20574991
DOI
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105036437139
Journal Title
Citizen Science Theory and Practice
Volume
11
Issue
1
Start Page
1
End Page
14
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Citizen Science Theory and Practice Vol.11 No.1 (2026) , 1-14
Suggested Citation
Ungsuchaval T., Kantamaturapoj K. Designing Citizen Science in Thailand: A Process Evaluation of a Program in a Contested Mining Context. Citizen Science Theory and Practice Vol.11 No.1 (2026) , 1-14. 14. doi:10.5334/cstp.973 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/116394
Title
Designing Citizen Science in Thailand: A Process Evaluation of a Program in a Contested Mining Context
Author(s)
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Gold mining has been widely associated with environmental contamination and related health risks, yet conventional state-centered monitoring systems often remain fragmented, weakly enforced, and inaccessible to affected communities. Citizen science (CS) has emerged globally as a participatory alternative, but research in Thailand has largely focused on project outcomes and top-down biodiversity monitoring, leaving the design processes of community-based CS initiatives underexamined. This article reports a formative, process-based evaluation of a community-based CS program designed to monitor environmental health impacts of a large-scale gold mine (Gold Mine Z) in Northern Thailand. It assesses program design across three interrelated dimensions: scientific quality and governance, participant engagement and capacity, and societal impact and communication. Empirically, the evaluation is based on the analysis of 26 in-depth interviews with relevant stakeholders. Findings indicate that the program's credibility in a contested governance setting is strongly associated with formal accountability structures, including independent oversight, validated monitoring protocols, and institutional response pathways linking citizen-generated data to relevant authorities. At the same time, efforts to strengthen scientific rigor and procedural safeguards may raise participation thresholds, potentially narrowing inclusivity unless supported by sustained capacity building and resources. Communication also emerges as a central design variable. Uncertainty about the interpretation and external use of monitoring results can undermine trust even when scientific protocols are robust. This article argues that, in politically sensitive and low-trust contexts, CS is best understood as an embedded accountability infrastructure in which governance arrangements, methodological rigor, and communication practices jointly shape legitimacy, participation, and prospects for policy relevance.