The main objectives of this research are i) to study the public expectation towards social development of Pakkred City Municipality, Nonthaburi Province;
ii) to compare the public expectation towards social development of Pakkred City Municipality, Nonthaburi Province, classified by personal factors, and iii) to study problems and suggestions for solving problems about the public expectation towards social development of Pakkred City Municipality, Nonthaburi Province.
The survey research was carried out in this study. The sample used in this study consisted of 149 people living in Pakkred City Municipality, Nonthaburi Province, drawn by random sampling technique. The tool used for data collection was questionnaire. The gathered data were analyzed by using statistical techniques such as frequencies, percentage, mean and standard deviation. To test the hypotheses, t-test and F-test (One Way Analysis of Variance) were employed. A mean difference of the pair was conducted by a Least Significant Different (LSD) .
The findings of this study are concluded as follows:
1.Most of the respondents are female, aged between 41-50 years old, with education level in bachelor’s degree. Most of them are married, with trade/own business as occupation and monthly income 5,001-10,000 baht.
2.The overall opinions of respondents relating to the public expectation towards social development of Pakkred City Municipality, Nonthaburi Province, were found at the most level. When considered into each aspect, it was noticed at the most levels in all aspects, ranging from the most to the least in terms of mean scores: infrastructure development, human and social resources, natural resources and environment, administration and economic development, respectively.
3.To compare opinions of personnel relating to the public expectation towards social development of Pakkred City Municipality, Nonthaburi Province, classified by personal factors, it was found that sex, age, level of education, and occupation have significant differences at .05 level of confidence, thus accepting formulated hypotheses, whereas status and monthly income were found no significant differences, therefore rejecting set hypothesis.
4.Majority of them suggested that i) for infrastructure development factor, there should solve densely residence, traffic problem, and use free area for the advantage in the community; ii) for economy development factor, there should focus the unemployment, develop an occupation, and develop the market cleanly; iii) for natural resources and environment factor, there should focus about traffic, the arrangement picks the garbage, and the clean preservation, iv) for human and social resources factor, there should focus the safety in the life and assets, use close circuit television in the area; and v) for administration factor, there should focus about the compliant in the area and give more information to people in the community.
|
