This study examines how community-based training shapes differential forms of agency in environmental monitoring within Pga K’nyau (Karen) highland communities in northern Thailand, where a digital monitoring system was introduced to integrate Indigenous Traditional Knowledge (ITK) and scientific environmental data. While digital monitoring technologies are increasingly promoted for climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction (DRR), limited empirical research has examined how such systems operate in Indigenous and rural contexts and how participation opportunities are distributed across communities. Using a qualitative case study approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 26 participants to explore how environmental monitoring is perceived, learned, adapted, and integrated into community practices. The findings reveal a process through which participation develops over time, progressing from livelihood-driven environmental awareness through experiential learning, technological adaptation, routine monitoring, and Indigenous–scientific knowledge integration. Three interrelated forms of agency (participatory, operational, and epistemic) emerged unevenly across participants and monitoring components. Sensor-based environmental measurements were more easily incorporated into digital reporting practices than orally transmitted Indigenous ecological knowledge, indicating that the system amplified certain forms of environmental knowledge over others. Gendered recruitment patterns, generational differences in digital familiarity, and social roles further shaped participation and knowledge visibility within the monitoring process. The study demonstrates that monitoring participation develops through socio-technical learning processes rather than technology adoption alone. The findings contribute to community-based environmental monitoring and DRR research by presenting an emerging Community Monitoring Experiential Training (CMET) structure for Indigenous and highland contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Potiracha et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: