Clean Energy and Digital Inclusion for Social Equality: Northern Thailand Project

By: Dr. Roland B. Wilson, Ruksina “Ning” Muthikuljones, and Naron Pasinmanee

Edited By: Sayidcali Ahmed

Abstract  

This study examines the effects of the Green Energy Green Network for the THAIs (GEGN) project on highland communities in Northern Thailand. The project addressed socio-economic disparities faced by hill tribe populations, including the Karen, Hmong, Lahu, and Akha, who have been marginalized in terms of land rights, education, healthcare, and digital access.1 By integrating solar electrification with telecommunications infrastructure, the GEGN project aimed to enhance livelihoods, expand educational opportunities, strengthen healthcare systems, and foster community participation.  

The study employed a mixed-methods design, incorporating household surveys (n = 560), semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis.2 The findings revealed SROI ratios of 2.27 and 2.48 for the two sites, alongside increases in average household income, school attendance, health service reliability, and reductions in environmentally harmful practices. Qualitative data emphasized enhanced dignity, empowerment of women and youth, and strengthened community participation. The study concludes that clean energy and digital inclusion are mutually reinforcing drivers of social equality, serving as scalable models for rural Asia and beyond, and directly contributing to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 4, 7, and 9.3

1. Introduction

Access to clean energy and digital connectivity are increasingly recognized as twin pillars of equitable development for many communities in the twenty-first century.4 Yet, although global electrification efforts have expanded rapidly, deep-rooted disparities remain.5 Similarly, while digital adoption has surged, with mobile internet penetration reaching 4.6 billion people globally in 2024, significant divides persist, particularly in rural and marginalized communities. These divides reflect not only technological limitations but the effects of affordability, literacy, and policy neglect.6,7,8 The convergence of energy and digital gaps intensifies socio-economic inequalities, excluding communities from education, healthcare, and livelihood opportunities.9  

Thailand illustrates both progress and persistent gaps in clean energy and digital connectivity, especially among minority populations and individuals with disabilities.10 While electrification has surpassed 99 percent nationally, remote upland areas inhabited by ethnic hill tribes continue to face limited access to reliable power and digital networks.11 These groups, including the Karen, Hmong, Lahu, and Akha, experience multidimensional poverty, insecure land tenure, and exclusion from mainstream social and economic systems.12 Educational disparities remain stark, with lower school attendance and attainment compared to national averages, while health services are hindered by geographic isolation and infrastructure gaps. Digital divides exacerbate these inequalities, leaving many households without access to online learning, telemedicine, or digital markets.13  

Some limited efforts have helped these groups, primarily through donations and small developments. However, the Green Energy Green Network for the THAIs (GEGN) project is the first known comprehensive corporate and government partnership envisioned to address these challenges by combining clean energy infrastructure with digital inclusion strategies The plan included providing internet connectivity to schools and health centers, training community members in digital literacy, and developing digital platforms for accessing educational and healthcare resources in remote areas.14 Rather than treating energy and digital divides as separate challenges, the project recognized their interdependence and designed integrated solutions to address them. Solar systems provided reliable electricity for households, schools, and health centers, while telecommunications networks enabled internet connectivity and digital services. Together, these interventions aimed to catalyze improvements in livelihoods, education, health, and social participation, thereby reducing long-standing inequalities.  

This study evaluates the GEGN project using the Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology to capture quantitative and qualitative dimensions of impact. By monetizing social value relative to investment, SROI offers a rigorous framework for demonstrating how clean energy and digital access can produce multiplier effects across development sectors.15 Beyond numerical outcomes, the study foregrounds the voices of community members to assess how dignity, empowerment, and participation were enhanced. This dual approach situates GEGN within broader theoretical frameworks of energy justice, the capability approach, human needs theory, and social change theory. The research contributes new evidence to debates on sustainable development and rural equity.16,17,18  

This introduction establishes the significance of this research and its impact. It positions the GEGN project not only as a localized intervention but as a model with relevance across Asia, where rural electrification and digital inclusion remain central to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.19 The following literature review situates this research within global, regional, and national debates, highlighting lessons learned and research gaps that this study addresses.  

2. Literature Review  

2.1 Global Perspectives on Energy Access and Digital Divides  

Energy is essential for human development, and when combined with digital access, it is paramount for community well-being in the twenty-first century.20 The literature on energy access highlights both progress and persistent inequities. The International Energy Agency reports that global electrification rates have increased substantially, yet reliability and affordability remain pressing concerns in many low-income regions.21 Addressing these qualitative dimensions is essential, as electrification alone cannot guarantee poverty alleviation or improved social outcomes.22 Parallel research on digital divides emphasizes that access is multidimensional, encompassing not only infrastructure but also affordability, literacy, and relevance GSMA (2024) highlights that despite rapid growth in mobile internet adoption, rural populations across Asia and Africa continue to face significant barriers to inclusion.23,24 Together, these literatures suggest that addressing energy or digital access in isolation is insufficient for achieving social equality.  

2.2 Integrated Approaches: Lessons from Asia and Africa  

Several studies on integrated interventions have provided evidence of synergistic effects.25 In South Asia, Palit (2013) found that solar electrification programs improved lighting and productivity but had limited impacts on education unless combined with digital tools.26 In Vietnam, Nguyen and Ha-Duong (2009) demonstrated that renewable energy systems linked with broadband access enhanced both livelihoods and community engagement.27 Le et al. (2021) further showed how rural electrification policies in Vietnam have been strengthened by coupling energy and digital services.28 Evidence from East Africa echoes these findings. Williams et al. (2015) describe how mini-grids integrated with mobile money platforms expanded both energy access and financial inclusion.29 Grimm et al. (2020) highlight how institutional innovations enabled the adoption of solar systems in West Africa, linking energy access to broader development outcomes.30 These cases demonstrate that integration across sectors creates multiplier effects, expanding capabilities and reducing inequality.  

2.3 Inequalities and Hill Tribe Development in Northern Thailand  

Northern Thailand’s highlands are home to diverse ethnic hill tribes, many of whom have historically been marginalized from mainstream Thai society. McCaskill and Kampe (1997) document how state development policies often sought to domesticate rather than empower indigenous groups.31 Buergin (2015) analyzes how shifts in policy frames, from population control to environmental protection to livelihood development, have repeatedly failed to address the root causes of inequality.32 Rerkasem (2020) highlights the persistence of socio-economic disparities rooted in insecure land tenure, lack of political representation, and limited access to infrastructure.33 These conditions contribute to lower educational attainment, poorer health outcomes, and higher poverty rates compared to national averages. Limited access to energy and connectivity exacerbates these challenges, reinforcing cycles of exclusion and limiting opportunities for upward mobility.  

Empirical studies confirm these disparities. Surveys indicate that without adequate resources, children from hill tribes often face barriers to education, including long travel distances to schools. Healthcare access is constrained by both geography and inadequate infrastructure, with clinics unable to store vaccines reliably due to energy shortages. Digital exclusion further marginalizes these communities, preventing them from accessing online learning, telemedicine, and market opportunities.34 These structural inequalities underscore the importance of projects like GEGN, which directly target both energy and digital deficits in marginalized regions.  

2.4 Theoretical Contributions: Energy Justice, Capabilities, Human Needs, and Social Change  

Theoretical literature provides insights into the importance of integrated approaches to social issues. Jenkins (2016) conceptualizes energy justice as encompassing distributive, recognition, and procedural dimensions.35 Heffron and McCauley (2017) extend this framework across disciplines, emphasizing fairness in distribution, acknowledgment of marginalized groups, and inclusive decision-making.36 The capability approach, articulated by Sen (1999) and Nussbaum (2000), frames energy and digital access as instrumental freedoms that expand substantive opportunities.37 Abraham Maslow and John Burton’s (1951; 1993) human needs theory explains how unmet needs stymie development and perpetuate conflict and exclusion.38 Social change theory emphasizes how targeted interventions can catalyze shifts in practices and norms. Together, these frameworks offer a multidimensional lens for analyzing how projects like GEGN contribute to social equality.  

2.5 Research Gaps and the Contribution of This Study  

Despite growing recognition of the interdependence between clean energy and digital inclusion, rigorous evaluations remain limited, particularly in Asia. Most studies focus on single-sector interventions, often overlooking the potential synergistic effects that can be produced through integration. Additionally, few evaluations utilize comprehensive frameworks, such as SROI, which monetizes both financial and non-financial outcomes. Moreover, the voices of marginalized communities are often absent from assessments, which limits our understanding of how interventions affect dignity, empowerment, and participation.39 This study addresses these gaps by providing a rigorous mixed-methods evaluation of GEGN. It quantifies social value through SROI ratios while capturing qualitative narratives that reveal more profound transformations. In doing so, it contributes new evidence to both scholarly debates and policy discussions on sustainable development in Asia. 

3. Theoretical Framework  

3.1 Energy Justice  

Energy justice has emerged as a prominent framework for understanding fairness in energy systems.40 Jenkins (2016) identifies three dimensions: distributive justice, recognition justice, and procedural justice.41 Distributive justice concerns the equitable allocation of benefits and burdens from energy systems, ensuring that marginalized groups have access to affordable and reliable energy. Recognition justice involves acknowledging the unique needs, identities, and rights of vulnerable populations, while procedural justice stresses inclusive participation in decision-making processes.42 Within the GEGN project, distributive justice was achieved by targeting communities historically excluded from Thailand’s development programs. Recognition was embedded by addressing the distinct challenges of hill tribe populations, while procedural justice was advanced through community consultations and participatory project design.  

3.2 Capability Approach  

The capability approach, pioneered by Sen (1999) and elaborated by Nussbaum (2000), reframes development as the expansion of substantive freedoms.43 Energy and digital access are not ends in themselves but enablers that allow individuals to pursue lives they have reason to value. For example, reliable electricity enables children to study at night and access digital resources, while internet connectivity allows farmers to participate in online markets. These capabilities extend beyond material improvements to encompass agency, dignity, and empowerment. In the GEGN context, the provision of clean energy and digital inclusion expanded the capability sets of marginalized communities, fostering broader educational, health, and economic outcomes.  

3.3 Human Needs Theory  

Burton (1993) argues that unmet human needs are fundamental drivers that impede development, cause marginalization, and conflict.44 Therefore, projects that address these needs can help reduce tensions and foster inclusion. In the GEGN project, energy access improved the sense of security by reducing reliance on dangerous kerosene lamps and unreliable biomass fuels. Digital inclusion enhances identity by connecting communities to broader networks, enabling them to affirm cultural traditions while engaging with modern institutions.45 Participation was facilitated by allowing households to access digital platforms for education, health, and market participation. By meeting these basic needs, the project strengthened social cohesion and reduced feelings of exclusion.  

3.4 Social Change Theory  

Social change theory emphasizes how targeted interventions can catalyze shifts in norms, practices, and outcomes. Giddens (1984) highlights the structure process, where agency and structure interact to produce social transformation.46 Oetzel and Ting-Toomey (2013) stress the importance of communication and intercultural adaptation in driving change.47 Within GEGN, traditional practices such as crop burning have shifted as communities adopted sustainable agricultural methods supported by digital information flows. Gender roles evolved as women formed online cooperatives to sell handicrafts, challenging established norms of economic dependency. Youth participation in online education platforms further reshaped intergenerational dynamics, demonstrating the transformative potential of energy-digital integration.  

3.5 Social Return on Investment (SROI)  

The SROI methodology complements theoretical perspectives by quantifying the social, economic, and environmental value generated by projects and investments. Grieco (2015) and Raiden et al. (2018) describe SROI as a tool that translates qualitative outcomes into measurable financial proxies, enabling rigorous evaluation of social value creation.48 In the GEGN project, SROI analysis captured not only direct financial benefits, such as increased household income, but also intangible outcomes, including empowerment, participation, and environmental sustainability. By monetizing these dimensions, SROI reinforced the normative claims of energy justice, capability expansion, and fulfillment of human needs.  

Together, these frameworks provide a comprehensive theoretical foundation for analyzing the impacts of GEGN. They highlight how clean energy and digital inclusion are not only technological interventions but also catalysts for expanding freedoms, fulfilling needs, and transforming social relations. 

4. Research Questions and Hypotheses  

Drawing on these theoretical foundations, the study formulated research questions and hypotheses to guide its evaluation. These questions addressed the multidimensional impacts of GEGN, ranging from economic outcomes to empowerment and environmental practices.  

4.1 Research Questions  

RQ1: How does access to integrated clean energy and digital infrastructure impact the livelihoods and opportunities of highland Thai communities?  

RQ2: What are the measurable social, economic, and environmental returns of the GEGN project as assessed by SROI analysis?  

RQ3: How do outcomes differ across socio-economic groups, particularly for women, youth, and ethnic minorities within the hill tribe populations?  

RQ4: How does integration of energy and digital inclusion contribute to the sustainability and resilience of community development outcomes?  

4.2 Hypotheses  

H1: Integrated interventions in energy and digital infrastructure deliver higher SROI ratios than single-sector approaches.49  

H2: Digital inclusion mediates the relationship between energy access and broader development outcomes, amplifying the benefits of electrification.50  

H3: Projects like GEGN reduce socio-economic disparities by enhancing empowerment, participation, and dignity among marginalized groups.51  

H4: The integration of clean energy and digital access contributes to long-term sustainability by fostering changes in social norms and practices, particularly in education, health, and environmental management.52 

5. Methods  

5.1 Research Design  

The evaluation of the GEGN project adopted a mixed-methods design to capture quantitative and qualitative dimensions of impact. This approach aligns with Creswell’s (2002) argument that complex social interventions are best understood through methodological triangulation.53 Quantitative data enabled the measurement of outcomes across various indicators, including income, education, health, and the environment. Qualitative data provided insight into the processes of empowerment, dignity, and social participation.  

5.2 Sampling  

The study sites comprised two highland communities: Mokopoke and Ban Dokmai Sod. Together, these sites represented five hundred and sixty households, from which a stratified random sampling technique was employed to ensure representation across gender, age, and ethnic sub-groups. This approach ensured that findings would not be biased toward specific socio-economic groups and that women, youth, and vulnerable populations were adequately represented.  

5.3 Data Collection  

Data collection instruments included structured household surveys, forty semi-structured interviews with community leaders, teachers, health workers, and entrepreneurs, as well as twelve focus group discussions organized by gender and age cohorts. Secondary data from local government offices, nongovernmental organizations, and previous development projects were incorporated to provide context for the findings. Surveys captured income, expenditure, education, health, and environmental practices, while interviews and focus groups focused on empowerment, dignity, and social inclusion.  

5.4 Indicators and Variables  

Key indicators were chosen to reflect multi-dimensional development outcomes. Income was measured as annual household earnings. Education indicators included average daily study hours, school attendance rates, and access to digital learning resources. Health was assessed through metrics such as emergency transfer times and vaccine storage reliability. Environmental indicators captured crop burning practices and the adoption of sustainable agriculture. Qualitative variables included women’s empowerment, youth engagement, and teacher support.  

5.5 SROI Framework  

The Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology provided the evaluative framework. Following established practice, SROI analysis involved: (1) identifying key stakeholders; (2) mapping outcomes through theory of change diagrams; (3) evidencing outcomes with quantitative and qualitative data; (4) monetizing outcomes using financial proxies; and (5) adjusting for deadweight, attribution, displacement, and drop-off.54  

Table 1. SROI Methodology Assumptions  

Parameter  

Assumption  

Deadweight  

10 percent assumed (based on baseline trends)  

Attribution  

15 percent (adjusted for other development programs)  

Displacement  

5 percent (minimal negative externalities)  

Drop-off  

20 percent annually  

Source: GEGN Project Evaluation, 2025  

5.6 Reliability and Validity  

Triangulation was employed to enhance validity, with household survey data cross-checked against findings from interviews and focus groups. Enumerator training and pilot testing reduced measurement errors. Limitations included reliance on self-reported income and recall-based data, which were mitigated by triangulation and external validation.  

5.7 Limitations  

A key limitation was the short evaluation timeframe, which may not capture long-term or intergenerational impacts. Additionally, while SROI provides a structured framework for valuation, the choice of financial proxies can significantly impact the results. Sensitivity analyses were therefore conducted to test robustness under varying assumptions. 

6. Results  

6.1 SROI Ratios  

The SROI analysis revealed strong returns for both communities, with ratios of 2.27 for Mokopoke and 2.48 for Ban Dokmai Sod. These results indicate that every Thai Baht invested in the project generated more than double its value in social, economic, and environmental benefits.  

Table 2. SROI Ratios by Community  

Community  

SROI Ratio  

Mokopoke  

2.27  

Ban Dokmai Sod  

2.48  

Source: GEGN Project Survey, 2025  

6.2 Income Outcomes  

Average household incomes rose significantly in both communities, with increases of 12 percent in Mokopoke and 15 percent in Ban Dokmai Sod. These gains were attributed to extended productive hours enabled by reliable electricity and improved market access through digital platforms.  

Table 3. Household Income Outcomes (Average Annual, THB)  

Community  

Before Project  

After Project  

Mokopoke  

82,000  

92,000  

Ban Dokmai Sod  

85,000  

97,500  

Source: GEGN Project Household Survey, 2025  

6.3 Education Outcomes  

Educational outcomes improved substantially. Average study hours per student increased from two and a half to four and six-tenths hours per day, while school attendance rose from 78 percent to 89 percent. Teachers reported enhanced ability to prepare lessons using online resources, and students noted greater motivation to continue education.  

Table 4. Education Outcomes  

Indicator  

Before Project  

After Project  

Average study hours per student per day  

2.5  

4.6  

School attendance (percent)  

78%  

89%  

Source: GEGN Project Education Survey, 2025  

6.4 Health Outcomes  

Health indicators also improved. Emergency patient transfer times dropped from ninety-five to fifty-five minutes on average, while vaccine storage reliability increased from 62 percent to 98 percent. These improvements were attributed to the combination of reliable electricity and enhanced communication through digital platforms.  

Table 5. Health Outcomes  

Indicator  

Before Project  

After Project  

Average emergency transfer time (minutes)  

95  

55  

Vaccine storage reliability (percent)  

62%  

98%  

Source: GEGN Project Health Survey, 2025  

6.5 Environmental and Agricultural Shifts  

Environmental practices shifted markedly. Households practicing crop burning declined from 72 percent to 47 percent, while adoption of sustainable crops rose from 28 percent to 61 percent. Community members credited both increased awareness from digital platforms and improved energy availability for enabling more sustainable agricultural practices.  

Table 6. Environmental and Agricultural Shifts  

Practice  

Before Project  

After Project  

Households practicing crop burning (percent)  

72%  

47%  

Households adopting sustainable crops (percent)  

28%  

61%  

Source: GEGN Project Environmental Survey, 2025  

6.6 Qualitative Themes and Illustrative Quotes  

Qualitative findings highlighted empowerment, dignity, and participation. Women reported greater agency through online sales platforms: “Now I can sell my products online and contribute to family income” (Female participant, Ban Dokmai Sod). Youth expressed enthusiasm for digital learning: “We use the internet to learn new skills and connect with other students” (Student, Mokopoke). Teachers also emphasized the benefits of reliable electricity: “Reliable electricity allows us to prepare lessons with online materials” (Teacher, Mokopoke). These narratives underscore how technological access translated into tangible improvements in agency and participation. 

Table 7. Key Qualitative Themes and Illustrative Quotes  

Theme  

Illustrative Quote  

Women’s Empowerment  

“Now I can sell my products online and contribute to family income.” – Woman participant, Ban Dokmai Sod.  

Youth Engagement  

“We use the internet to learn new skills and connect with other students.” – Student, Mokopoke  

Teacher Support  

“Reliable electricity allows us to prepare lessons with online materials.” – Teacher, Mokopoke  

Source: GEGN Project Focus Groups, 2025  

6.7 Sensitivity Analysis  

Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings. At a 5 percent discount rate, SROI ratios rose to 2.40 (Mokopoke) and 2.62 (Ban Dokmai Sod). At 12 percent, ratios declined to 2.10 and 2.31, respectively, but remained well above the benchmark of 1.0. This robustness underscores the strong value-for-money case for integrated energy-digital interventions.  

Table 8. SROI Sensitivity Analysis  

Community  

5% Discount Rate  

8% Discount Rate  

12% Discount Rate  

Mokopoke  

2.40  

2.27  

2.10  

Ban Dokmai Sod  

2.62  

2.48  

2.31  

Average  

2.51  

2.37  

2.21  

Source: GEGN Project SROI Analysis, 2025 

7. Discussion

7.1 Interpretation of SROI Findings  

The SROI results of 2.27 for Mokopoke and 2.48 for Ban Dokmai Sod indicate that every Thai Baht invested generated more than double its value in social, economic, and environmental outcomes. These ratios exceed the benchmark of 1.0, typically considered acceptable for development projects.55 They also compare favorably with other integrated infrastructure projects globally, where ratios ranged from 1.5 to 2.0.56 The findings underscore the importance of combining clean energy and digital inclusion, rather than treating them as separate sectors.  

7.2 Linking Results to Theoretical Frameworks  

Energy justice provides a compelling lens for interpreting these findings. Distributive justice was advanced by delivering benefits to marginalized hill tribes, who had been historically excluded from national development. Recognition of justice was visible in the project’s deliberate attention to the cultural and socio-economic realities of these groups. Procedural justice was enacted through participatory design, where community members had a voice in decisions on infrastructure placement and training.  

From the perspective of the capability approach, the project expanded freedoms and opportunities. Children gained the ability to study longer and access online resources, farmers accessed digital markets, and women launched online businesses. These outcomes resonate with Sen’s (1999) argument that development must be evaluated by the fundamental freedoms people can exercise.57 Similarly, Nussbaum’s (2000) emphasis on education, health, and participation as central capabilities was supported by the findings.58  

Human needs theory explains how the project addressed previously unmet needs. Energy access reduces risks associated with kerosene lighting, enhancing security. Digital access provided identity and belonging by connecting communities to broader networks, while participation was strengthened through access to information and platforms for expression. These outcomes align with Burton’s (1993) framework, illustrating how meeting basic needs can reduce marginalization.59  

Social change theory helps explain the observed shifts in norms and practices. Crop burning, once considered a traditional practice, has declined significantly as households adopt sustainable agriculture promoted through digital networks. Gender roles shifted as women gained digital literacy and income-generating opportunities, while youth engaged with online education platforms, reshaping intergenerational dynamics. These findings align with Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory and Oetzel and Ting-Toomey’s (2013) emphasis on communication as a driving force behind social transformation.60  

7.3 Comparative Evidence from Asia and Africa  

The GEGN findings are consistent with a growing body of evidence on integrated approaches. In India, Pachauri (2020) showed that electrification alone did not reduce poverty unless accompanied by digital and social services.61 In Vietnam, Nguyen and Ha-Duong (2009) documented that rural renewable energy projects had a greater impact when linked to broadband connectivity.62 Le et al. (2021) further demonstrated how integration of digital platforms with electrification enhanced educational and health outcomes.63 In East Africa, Williams et al. (2015) found that mini-grids coupled with mobile money systems expanded financial inclusion alongside energy access.64 Grimm et al. (2020) highlighted how institutional innovations facilitated the adoption of solar systems in West Africa, reinforcing the link between energy access and broader development goals.65 The GEGN results contribute to this evidence base by providing one of the few rigorous SROI analyses in Southeast Asia, confirming the synergistic potential of energy-digital integration.  

7.4 Empowerment Narratives  

Qualitative findings emphasized empowerment, particularly for women and youth. Women who previously had limited economic opportunities reported greater agency through online handicraft sales: “Now I can sell my products online and contribute to family income” (Female participant, Ban Dokmai Sod). Youth expressed enthusiasm for digital learning: “We use the internet to learn new skills and connect with other students” (Student, Mokopoke). Teachers and healthcare workers echoed these sentiments, noting that reliable electricity enabled them to prepare lessons and store vaccines. These voices illustrate the human dimension of the project, showing how infrastructure interventions translated into dignity, empowerment, and participation.  

7.5 Limitations and Biases  

Despite these positive outcomes, limitations must be acknowledged. Income and education indicators relied on self-reported data, which may be subject to recall bias or overestimation. Additionally, triangulation with interviews and secondary data provided validation. Another limitation is the short evaluation horizon, which may not capture long-term or intergenerational impacts. Finally, while findings are consistent with comparative studies, transferability to other contexts may require adaptation to local cultural, institutional, and geographic conditions. 

8. Policy and Practice Implications  

8.1 Integrated Infrastructure Planning  

The GEGN experience underscores the need for integrated approaches. Siloed interventions, such as electrification without digital access, risk yielding suboptimal outcomes. Therefore, policymakers should design programs that simultaneously address energy and digital divides, recognizing their interdependence.  

8.2 Blended Finance Models  

Projects in remote areas often face high upfront costs and risks. Blended finance models, which combine public funding, private investment, and concessional loans, can reduce risk for these projects and mobilize capital. The involvement of Gulf Energy, AIS, and HRDI in GEGN illustrates the viability of such important partnerships.  

8.3 Equity Safeguards  

Equity safeguards are essential to ensure interventions do not exacerbate inequalities. This includes targeted outreach to marginalized groups, gender-sensitive program design, and monitoring systems disaggregated by ethnicity, gender, and income. Such measures align with global calls for inclusive development.66  

8.4 Digital Literacy and Capacity-Building  

Infrastructure must be complemented by digital literacy training. Without capacity-building, marginalized groups may not fully benefit from new technologies. Community-based training programs, particularly for women and youth, can ensure equitable access and long-term sustainability.  

8.5 Regional Collaboration and Knowledge Exchange  

Many Southeast Asian countries face similar challenges. Platforms for regional collaboration can enable the sharing of best practices and lessons learned. For example, Vietnam’s integration of renewable energy and broadband offers valuable lessons for Thailand, while East Africa’s experience with mobile money-energy linkages provides insights into financial inclusion strategies.  

8.6 Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)  

Integrated energy-digital projects directly contribute to multiple SDGs: SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).67 Policymakers should explicitly link such projects to SDG targets to leverage international support and financing.  

8.7 Future of Inclusive Development in Asia  

The success of GEGN suggests a pathway for scaling integrated interventions. Expansion to other highland and rural areas in Thailand, as well as neighboring countries like Laos and Myanmar, could generate widespread benefits. To achieve this, governments must create enabling policy environments, incentivize private sector participation, and embed equity safeguards to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of benefits. As Asia seeks to recover from economic disruptions and build climate resilience, integrated clean energy and digital inclusion projects represent a promising strategy for inclusive development. 

9. Future Research Directions  

While the findings of the GEGN project evaluation are promising, they also highlight critical areas requiring further research. Longitudinal studies are necessary to evaluate the sustainability of benefits across generations, particularly in relation to women’s empowerment, youth education, and the adoption of sustainable agriculture. Current findings capture short-term impacts, but intergenerational analysis will clarify whether these gains translate into lasting reductions in inequality.  

Comparative studies across different socio-political contexts in Asia would also be valuable. Countries such as Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam face similar challenges in terms of remote electrification and digital exclusion. Cross-country analyses could illuminate how variations in governance, cultural dynamics, and infrastructure investment shape outcomes, thus offering transferable lessons.  

Methodologically, the incorporation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental designs would strengthen causal inference. Future projects could embed digital literacy training as a treatment condition, enabling researchers to disentangle whether impacts are driven primarily by energy access, digital inclusion, or the synergy between the two.  

Climate resilience outcomes warrant further exploration. Clean energy and digital platforms may enhance adaptive capacities in the face of extreme weather events, crop failures, or health crises. Quantifying resilience dividends could expand the policy relevance of integrated infrastructure.  

Finally, governance and institutional dynamics remain underexplored. Understanding how community leadership, external partnerships, and state agencies interact to sustain benefits is vital for scaling. Such research would guide policymakers and practitioners in designing resilient institutional frameworks that ensure long-term success. 

10. Conclusion  

The GEGN project clearly demonstrates the transformative potential of integrating clean energy and digital inclusion to address persistent inequalities in Northern Thailand’s highlands. By combining solar electrification with telecommunications infrastructure, the project improved livelihoods, education, health, and environmental practices. With SROI ratios exceeding 2.0, the initiative delivered strong value-for-money, while qualitative evidence revealed enhanced dignity, empowerment, and participation.  

These findings affirm the theoretical perspectives of energy justice, the capability approach, human needs theory, and social change theory. They illustrate how technological interventions can expand freedoms, meet basic needs, and catalyze social transformation. Notably, the project demonstrated that marginalized hill tribe communities, often excluded from national development, can thrive when given equitable access to energy and digital resources.  

Policy implications extend beyond Thailand. Many Asian countries face similar challenges of rural electrification and digital exclusion. The GEGN experience offers lessons on how integrated infrastructure can generate multiplier effects, advance multiple SDGs, and build more inclusive societies. Yet the conclusion also echoes the abstract’s emphasis on the need for further research, particularly longitudinal and comparative studies, to fully understand the durability and transferability of impacts. The team of researchers is now working on the second phase of this project, and future research will be essential for scaling interventions and ensuring they contribute to systemic social equality across Asia.  

Acknowledgements  

The authors gratefully acknowledge the participation and insights of the communities of Mokopoke and Ban Dokmai Sod. Special thanks are extended to Gulf Energy Development PCL., Advance Info Service (AIS), and the Highland Research and Development Institute (HRDI) for their financial and technical support. Oversight and technical guidance from the National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) were also instrumental in this process. The dedication of the research team and field staff made this evaluation possible.  

Funding and Declarations  

Funding: This study was supported by Gulf Energy Development PCL., Advance Info Service (AIS), and the Highland Research and Development Institute (HRDI). Oversight and technical support were provided by the National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA).  

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.  

Ethical Approval: Human subject and ethical approval to ensure the ethical treatment and protection of participants were granted by the National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) Institutional Review Board(2). Additionally, prior informed consent was obtained from all participants.  

Data Availability: Data supporting the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author. 

 

Works Cited

  1. McCaskill, D., and K. Kampe, eds. 1997. Development or Domestication? Indigenous Peoples of Southeast Asia. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.  
  2. Grieco, C. 2015. Social Return on Investment (SROI): Origins, Applications, and Limits. Milan: Springer.  
  3. United Nations. 2025. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2025. New York: United Nations.  
  4. Prindle, Bill, Maggie Eldridge, Mike Eckhardt, and Alyssa Frederick. 2007. “The Twin Pillars of Sustainable Energy: Synergies between Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Technology and Policy.” Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.  
  5. World Bank, IEA, IRENA, UNSD, and WHO. 2025. Tracking SDG7: The Energy Progress Report 2025. Washington, DC: World Bank.  
  6. GSMA. 2024. The State of Mobile Internet Connectivity 2024. London: GSM Association.  
  7. Pavez, Isabel, Teresa Correa, Catalina Farias, and Nicolás Tobar. 2025. “Are We There Yet? The Persistent Digital Marginalization of Remote Rural Communities: A Mixed-Method Longitudinal Study (2014–2023).” Telecommunications Policy: 102994.  
  8. UNESCOAP. 2024. *Asia-Pacific Digital Transformation Report 2024*. Bangkok: United Nations ESCAP.  
  9. Pachauri, S. 2020. “Energy Access and Its Link to Poverty Alleviation: Evidence from India.” Energy for Sustainable Development 55: 1–10.  
  10. Phochai, Thitiphat, Prasongchai Setthasuravich, Aphisit Pukdeewut, and Suthiwat Wetchakama. 2024. “Bridging the Digital Disability Divide: Determinants of Internet Use among Visually Impaired Individuals in Thailand.” Disabilities 4 (3): 696–723.  
  11. Rerkasem, K. 2020. “Hill Tribes and the Politics of Inequality in Northern Thailand.” Asian Journal of Social Science 48 (1–2): 72–95.  
  12. Buergin, R. 2015. “Shifting Frames of Security: From Population to Environment to Livelihood Development in Northern Thailand’s Highlands.” Geoforum 59: 103–113.  
  13. GSMA. 2024. The State of Mobile Internet Connectivity 2024. London: GSM Association.  
  14. Sirasoontorn, Puree, and Praiphol Koomsup. 2017. Energy Transition in Thailand: Challenges and Opportunities. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Thailand Office.  
  15. Raiden, A., M. Loosemore, and A. King. 2018. “Social Impact Assessment and Evaluation.” International Journal of Project Management 36 (3): 400–413.  
  16. Jenkins, K. 2016. “Energy Justice: A Conceptual Review.” Energy Research & Social Science 11: 174–182.  
  17. Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.  
  18. Burton, J. 1993. Conflict: Resolution and Prevention. New York: St. Martin’s Press.  
  19. United Nations. 2025. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2025. New York: United Nations.  
  20. Shyu, Chian-Woei. 2022. “Energy Poverty Alleviation in Southeast Asian Countries: Policy Implications for Improving Access to Electricity.” Journal of Asian Public Policy 15 (1): 97–121.  
  21. IEA. 2024. Southeast Asia Energy Outlook 2024. Paris: International Energy Agency.  
  22. Rana, Masud, Md Muhaimin Siddieq, Hasibul Islam, and SM Shahedul Alam. 2025. “Evaluating the Impact of Sustainable Energy Access on Achieving SDGs in Eastern Asia: A Quantitative Approach.” Energy 360: 100031.  
  23. van Dijk, J. 2020. The Digital Divide. Cambridge: Polity Press.  
  24. GSMA. 2024. The State of Mobile Internet Connectivity 2024. London: GSM Association.  
  25. Mazzoni, Davide. 2019. “Digitalization for Energy Access in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges, Opportunities and Potential Business Models.”  
  26. Palit, D. 2013. “Solar Energy Programs for Rural Electrification: Experiences and Lessons from South Asia.” Energy for Sustainable Development 17 (3): 270–279.  
  27. Nguyen, K. Q., and M. Ha-Duong. 2009. “Economic Potential of Renewable Energy in Vietnam’s Remote Areas.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (9): 2741–2750.  
  28. Le, T. T., M. Ha-Duong, and T. A. Nguyen. 2021. “Rural Electrification and Renewable Energy in Vietnam: Policy and Practice.” Energy Reports 7: 3315–3328.  
  29. Williams, N., P. Jaramillo, J. Taneja, and T. S. Ustun. 2015. “Enabling Private Sector Investment in Minigrids for Rural Electrification: A Case Study of Tanzania.” Energy Research & Social Science 5: 107–114.  
  30. Grimm, M., F. Gubert, O. Koriko, J. Lay, and C. Nordman. 2020. “Liquidity Constraints, Informal Institutions, and the Adoption of Solar Home Systems in West Africa.” Energy Policy 137: 111119.  
  31. McCaskill, D., and K. Kampe, eds. 1997. Development or Domestication? Indigenous Peoples of Southeast Asia. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.  
  32. Buergin, R. 2015. “Shifting Frames of Security: From Population to Environment to Livelihood Development in Northern Thailand’s Highlands.” Geoforum 59: 103–113.  
  33. Rerkasem, K. 2020. “Hill Tribes and the Politics of Inequality in Northern Thailand.” Asian Journal of Social Science 48 (1–2): 72–95.  
  34. GSMA. 2024. The State of Mobile Internet Connectivity 2024. London: GSM Association.  
  35. Jenkins, K. 2016. “Energy Justice: A Conceptual Review.” Energy Research & Social Science 11: 174–182.  
  36. Heffron, R., and D. McCauley. 2017. “The Concept of Energy Justice across the Disciplines.” Energy Policy 105: 658–667.  
  37. Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.  
  38. Burton, J. 1993. Conflict: Resolution and Prevention. New York: St. Martin’s Press.  
  39. Kane, June, and Vachararutai Boontinand. 2011. “Cultivating Democratic Leaders from Marginalized Groups (Thailand).”  
  40. Qian, Yu, Zeshui Xu, Xunjie Gou, and Marinko Skare. 2023. “A Survey on Energy Justice: A Critical Review of the Literature.” Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 36 (3).  
  41. Jenkins, K. 2016. “Energy Justice: A Conceptual Review.” Energy Research & Social Science 11: 174–182.  
  42. Heffron, R., and D. McCauley. 2017. “The Concept of Energy Justice across the Disciplines.” Energy Policy 105: 658–667.  
  43. Nussbaum, M. 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  
  44. Burton, J. 1993. Conflict: Resolution and Prevention. New York: St. Martin’s Press.  
  45. Higgins, Noelle, Delia Ferri, and Katie Donnellan. 2023. “Enhancing Access to Digital Culture for Vulnerable Groups: The Role of Public Authorities in Breaking Down Barriers.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 36 (5): 2087–2114.  
  46. Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.  
  47. Oetzel, J., and S. Ting-Toomey. 2013. The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  
  48. Raiden, A., M. Loosemore, and A. King. 2018. “Social Impact Assessment and Evaluation.” International Journal of Project Management 36 (3): 400–413.  
  49. Grieco, C. 2015. Social Return on Investment (SROI): Origins, Applications, and Limits. Milan: Springer.  
  50. Nguyen, K. Q., and M. Ha-Duong. 2009. “Economic Potential of Renewable Energy in Vietnam’s Remote Areas.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (9): 2741–2750.  
  51. Burton, J. 1993. Conflict: Resolution and Prevention. New York: St. Martin’s Press.  
  52. Oetzel, J., and S. Ting-Toomey. 2013. The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  
  53. Creswell, J. W. 2002. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  
  54. Grieco, C. 2015. Social Return on Investment (SROI): Origins, Applications, and Limits. Milan: Springer.  
  55. Grieco, C. 2015. Social Return on Investment (SROI): Origins, Applications, and Limits. Milan: Springer.  
  56. Palit, D. 2013. “Solar Energy Programs for Rural Electrification: Experiences and Lessons from South Asia.” Energy for Sustainable Development 17 (3): 270–279.  
  57. Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.  
  58. Nussbaum, M. 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  
  59. Burton, J. 1993. Conflict: Resolution and Prevention. New York: St. Martin’s Press.  
  60. Oetzel, J., and S. Ting-Toomey. 2013. The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  
  61. Pachauri, S. 2020. “Energy Access and Its Link to Poverty Alleviation: Evidence from India.” Energy for Sustainable Development 55: 1–10.  
  62. Nguyen, K. Q., and M. Ha-Duong. 2009. “Economic Potential of Renewable Energy in Vietnam’s Remote Areas.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (9): 2741–2750.  
  63. Le, T. T., M. Ha-Duong, and T. A. Nguyen. 2021. “Rural Electrification and Renewable Energy in Vietnam: Policy and Practice.” Energy Reports 7: 3315–3328.  
  64. Williams, N., P. Jaramillo, J. Taneja, and T. S. Ustun. 2015. “Enabling Private Sector Investment in Minigrids for Rural Electrification: A Case Study of Tanzania.” Energy Research & Social Science 5: 107–114.  
  65. Grimm, M., F. Gubert, O. Koriko, J. Lay, and C. Nordman. 2020. “Liquidity Constraints, Informal Institutions, and the Adoption of Solar Home Systems in West Africa.” Energy Policy 137: 111119.   
  66. United Nations. 2025. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2025. New York: United Nations.  
  67. Saxena, Anurag, Meghna Ramaswamy, Jon Beale, Darcy Marciniuk, and Preston Smith. 2021. “Striving for the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): What Will It Take?” Discover Sustainability 2 (1): 20. 


Author Bio

Dr. Roland B. Wilson (Practitioner-Scholar and Consultant; Professor and Program Coordinator; Founder and Director, Peace and Conflict Studies Center Asia; Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution; George Mason University Korea)

Dr. Roland B. Wilson is the Program Coordinator and faculty advisor for the Conflict Analysis and Resolution (CAR) Program at George Mason University’s campus in South Korea. He is also the Founder and Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Center Asia (PACSC Asia), serving as an international mediator, conflict resolution practitioner, and consultant. He holds a doctorate in CAR from George Mason University.

Bringing a unique depth of experience spanning nearly 40 years, Dr. Wilson’s career is shaped by combined military, government, and academic service. His expertise encompasses Asia-Pacific relations, foreign policy, security studies, and complex conflict and social issues.

Having lived in Asia for over two decades, Dr. Wilson is sought for high-level training, strategic analysis, and consulting on international and intergovernmental conflicts, peace processes, and human security efforts. His current focus is on capacities for the peaceful resolution of culturally diverse and protracted social conflicts.

Ruksina “Ning” Mutthikuljones (Managing Director and Public Relations Executive Communications Strategist, Social Impact Consultant, and A Visionary Next-Generation Woman Leader)

Ms. Ruksina “Ning” Muthikuljones is a highly accomplished communications and public relations leader with over 15 years of experience advising top-tier multinational corporations and global brands. She is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Public Policy at Liberty University, holding an M.S. in Marketing Management and a B.A. in Communication Arts.

Ruksina has deep expertise in media intelligence and analysis, communication, and leadership. She directed successful communications strategies for diverse clients across FMCG, technology, hospitality, and e-commerce, including Ericsson, Lufthansa, and Pfizer.

Ruksina’s current focus includes strategic consulting, particularly at the intersection of communications, research, and social impact. As a Strategic Manager and Practitioner, she supports AIS in advancing social inclusion and digital wellness, notably contributing to the Thailand Cyber Wellness Index. She is dedicated to leveraging strategic communication and public policy engagement to drive meaningful societal progress.

Naron Pasinmanee (Applied Economics Practitioner and Social Impact Researcher Policy & Digital Wellness Analyst)

Mr. Naron Pasinmanee is a professional in applied economics, social impact, and policy-oriented research, focusing on evidence-based program evaluation and digital wellness. Naron is currently pursuing an M.S. in Economics, specializing in Applied Economics and Innovation, at King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, and holds a B.S. in Community Health.

Naron is currently providing expertise to Advance Info Service PLC (AIS) in Thailand, and has contributed to several high-impact national studies linking policy, technology, and sustainable development. His work includes developing the Thailand Cyber Wellness Index, a strategic assessment designed to enhance digital competence and safe online behavior among Thai youth. Additionally, he contributed to the 2025 Social Return on Investment (SROI) evaluation of the Green Energy Green Network project.

Naron blends analytical rigor with community-centered insight, demonstrating strong capabilities in quantitative and qualitative analysis, and evidence-based approaches to inform policy, promote digital literacy, and support sustainable development.

Related Posts

Scroll to Top