Volume 13, Issue 5 (May 2026), Pages: 73-88

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Social engineering and design thinking for urban poverty alleviation in low-income communities

 Author(s): 

Phusit Phukamchanoad *

 Affiliation(s):

Faculty of Humanities and Social Science, Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, Bangkok, Thailand

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0705-221X

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 
https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2026.05.008

 Abstract

This study examines how the integration of social engineering and design thinking can support sustainable livelihood development in urban low-income communities in Bangkok, Thailand. The research focuses on the Wat Sawaswareesrimaram community and applies a participatory action research (PAR) approach involving Rajabhat University students, community leaders, and local residents. A total of thirty participants, including low-income households, public health volunteers, and local entrepreneurs, collaborated to develop context-specific solutions to economic challenges. Several participatory tools—such as cause–effect analysis, the Life Cycle Clock, and the Modify–Improve–Create–Innovation (MICI) model—were used within a four-stage framework adapted from the Four Noble Truths and the design thinking process. Based on this process, the study proposes a nine-stage sustainable livelihood development model to support income-generating activities grounded in local context, co-creation, and cultural identity. An illustrative case highlights a single mother who transformed traditional Thai banana-leaf desserts into a sustainable home-based business, demonstrating the practical value of the model. The findings indicate that multidisciplinary, community-based learning can empower vulnerable groups, strengthen local leadership, and enhance long-term economic resilience. The study also suggests that academic institutions can play an important role in promoting inclusive development through the integration of teaching, research, and community engagement.

 © 2026 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

Sustainable livelihood development, Social engineering integration, Design thinking approach, Participatory action research, Community-based empowerment

 Article history

Received 26 November 2025, Received in revised form 25 April 2026, Accepted 5 May 2026

 Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank all participants who voluntarily agreed to take part in this study. Their willingness to participate and share their views has helped advance our research and ensure its success. Additionally, I would like to express my gratitude for the valuable information provided by the Privy Councilor overseeing Rajabhat Universities and the Council of Rajabhat University Presidents. 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University (Approval Code: COE.2-030/2023). All participants voluntarily participated in the study and provided informed consent prior to data collection. Participants were informed of the study objectives, their right to withdraw at any time, and the confidentiality of their responses. Personal information was anonymized to protect participant privacy. 

 Citation:

Phukamchanoad P (2026). Social engineering and design thinking for urban poverty alleviation in low-income communities. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 13(5): 73-88

  Permanent Link to this page

---------------------------------------------- 

 References (29)

1. Adesina OS (2014). Modern day slavery: Poverty and child trafficking in Nigeria. African Identities, 12(2): 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725843.2014.881278   [Google Scholar] 
2. Alkire S and Foster J (2011). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7-8): 476-487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.006   [Google Scholar] PMCid:PMC5511308
3. Boonjubun C (2019). Also the urban poor live in gated communities: A Bangkok case study. Social Sciences, 8(7): 219. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8070219   [Google Scholar]
4. Brown T (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6): 84–92.   [Google Scholar]
5. Brown T and Katz B (2011). Change by design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3): 381-383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x   [Google Scholar]
6. Cleaver F (2005). The inequality of social capital and the reproduction of chronic poverty. World Development, 33(6): 893-906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.09.015   [Google Scholar]
7. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, and Haynes RB (1997). Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126(5): 376-380. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006   [Google Scholar] PMid:9054282
8. De Silva MJ, Breuer E, Lee L, Asher L, Chowdhary N, Lund C, and Patel V (2014). Theory of change: A theory-driven approach to enhance the Medical Research Council's framework for complex interventions. Trials, 15: 267. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-267   [Google Scholar] PMid:24996765 PMCid:PMC4227087
9. Deenang E, Thanyasunthornsakun K, and Paisan T (2023). A development of social engineer skills indicators for students’ Udon Thani Rajabhat University. Interdisciplinary Academic and Research Journal, 3(4): 371-388.   [Google Scholar]
10. Funnell SC and Rogers PJ (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models. John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, USA.   [Google Scholar]
11. Hadnagy C (2010). Social engineering: The art of human hacking. John Wiley & Sons, Indianapolis, USA.   [Google Scholar]
12. Hagenaars AJM (1991). The definition and measurement of poverty. In: Osberg L (Ed.), Economic inequality and poverty: 134-156. 1st Edition, Routledge, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
13. Kemeny T (2012). Cultural diversity, institutions, and urban economic performance. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44(9): 2134-2152. https://doi.org/10.1068/a44385   [Google Scholar]
14. Kritsonis A (2005). Comparison of change theories. International Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity, 8(1): 1-7.    [Google Scholar]
15. Lister R (2021). Poverty. 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Cambridge, UK.   [Google Scholar]
16. Lombardo R, Durand JF, Camminatiello I, and Cuccurullo C (2025). Exploring poverty and SDG indicators in Italy: An identity spline approach to partial least squares regression. Econometrics, 13(4): 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/econometrics13040050   [Google Scholar]
17. McManaman LJ (1958). Social engineering: The legal philosophy of Roscoe Pound. St. John's Law Review, 33: 1.   [Google Scholar]
18. Milner HR (2013). Analyzing poverty, learning, and teaching through a critical race theory lens. Review of Research in Education, 37(1): 1-53. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X12459720   [Google Scholar]
19. Mulrow CD, Cook DJ, and Davidoff F (1997). Systematic reviews: Critical links in the great chain of evidence. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126(5): 389-391. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00008   [Google Scholar] PMid:9054284
20. Nandan M and London M (2013). Interdisciplinary professional education: Training college students for collaborative social change. Education + Training, 55(8-9): 815–835. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2013-0078   [Google Scholar]
21. Östlund D (2007). A knower and friend of human beings, not machines: The business career of the terminology of social engineering, 1894-1910. Ideas in History, 2(2): 43-82.   [Google Scholar]
22. Pakarinen A, Lemström T, Rainio E, and Siirala E (2023). Design thinking in healthcare: From problem to innovative solutions. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24510-7   [Google Scholar]
23. Popper K (2011). The open society and its enemies. 1st Edition, Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203439913   [Google Scholar]
24. Rakodi C (1995). Poverty lines or household strategies?: A review of conceptual issues in the study of urban poverty. Habitat International, 19(4): 407-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-3975(95)00037-G   [Google Scholar]
25. Reggiani AH (2006). God’s eugenicist: Alexis Carrel and the sociobiology of decline. Berghahn Books, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781800733985   [Google Scholar] PMCid:PMC1856607
26. Serumaga-Zake P and Naudé W (2002). The determinants of rural and urban household poverty in the North West province of South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 19(4): 561-572. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835022000019392   [Google Scholar]
27. Song HC (2020). Sufficiency economy philosophy: Buddhism‐based sustainability framework in Thailand. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8): 2995-3005. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2553   [Google Scholar]
28. Torten R, Reaiche C, and Boyle S (2018). The impact of security awareness on information technology professionals’ behavior. Computers & Security, 79: 68-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2018.08.007   [Google Scholar]
29. Wang Y and Horta H (2025). University-based social innovation and entrepreneurship education in Hong Kong: A curriculum analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 50(6): 1248-1267. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2369202   [Google Scholar]