3.4 Development of the Conceptual Model
A literature survey was conducted to follow the methodology for the development
of the conceptual model for the Himalayan landscape development (Belovsky 1994;
Wand et al. 1995; Balasubramamiam et al. 1996; Dale et al. 1998; Edwards et al.
1999; Tulloch 1999; Bettinger 1999; Martinez-Fernandez et al. 2000; Jackson et al.
2000; Bettinger and Boston 2001; Farrow and Winograd 2001; Baja et al. 2002;
Kaechele and Dabbert 2002; Gomez-Sal et al. 2003; Zander 2003; Moody 2005;
Petalas et al. 2005; Hillman et al. 2005; Odening et al. 2005; Rees et al. 2006; Leleu
2006; Gonzalez-Perez and Henderson-Sellers 2007, Zander et al. 2007, Rossing
et al. 2007). A comparison was made in view of our requirement for handing the
theoretical model and concurrently synthesized the appropriate methodology to
develop the concepts concurrently for the outcome of the conceptual model.
4 Results and Discussion
4.1 Outcome from Empirical Studies
The empirical studies have considered every sector of the ecosystems of the
Himalayan region and analysis was done using the identified indicators. Yet, in a
rural ecosystem study, it is impossible to measure every variable of the system.
Therefore, we analyzed the indicators which were succinctly defined as “quantified
information which help to explain how things are changing over time (DoE 1996)
and well-chosen indicators permit to summarize the complex information” (Bossel
1999; Hardi and Zdan 1997; Moldan and Billharz 1997; for further detail see
Farrow and Winograd, under indicator section). The results of our empirical study
are presented here with the few examples, such as the data on some of the branches
of the village ecosystem function—agriculture productivity, resource collection,
income of farm management, etc. The empirical studies were undertaken with a
view to understand the human and ecosystem interaction under changing environmental, political, and economic conditions. Following are the results from our
studies with a few basic examples which are described briefly in view of multifunctionality of the landscape research. For more detail, please see Nautiyal (1998),
Nautiyal et al. (2001a, 2003a, b, 2007), Nautiyal and Kaechele (2007a, b, c).
4.2 Innovation and People Behavior
We have studied why and how do people change their way of earnings (including
land use) under changing environment (natural, technological) and socioeconomic
conditions. We have considered what would be the implications of such changes in
Socioeconomic and Ecological Modeling for Sustainable …
603
A literature survey was conducted to follow the methodology for the development
of the conceptual model for the Himalayan landscape development (Belovsky 1994;
Wand et al. 1995; Balasubramamiam et al. 1996; Dale et al. 1998; Edwards et al.
1999; Tulloch 1999; Bettinger 1999; Martinez-Fernandez et al. 2000; Jackson et al.
2000; Bettinger and Boston 2001; Farrow and Winograd 2001; Baja et al. 2002;
Kaechele and Dabbert 2002; Gomez-Sal et al. 2003; Zander 2003; Moody 2005;
Petalas et al. 2005; Hillman et al. 2005; Odening et al. 2005; Rees et al. 2006; Leleu
2006; Gonzalez-Perez and Henderson-Sellers 2007, Zander et al. 2007, Rossing
et al. 2007). A comparison was made in view of our requirement for handing the
theoretical model and concurrently synthesized the appropriate methodology to
develop the concepts concurrently for the outcome of the conceptual model.
4 Results and Discussion
4.1 Outcome from Empirical Studies
The empirical studies have considered every sector of the ecosystems of the
Himalayan region and analysis was done using the identified indicators. Yet, in a
rural ecosystem study, it is impossible to measure every variable of the system.
Therefore, we analyzed the indicators which were succinctly defined as “quantified
information which help to explain how things are changing over time (DoE 1996)
and well-chosen indicators permit to summarize the complex information” (Bossel
1999; Hardi and Zdan 1997; Moldan and Billharz 1997; for further detail see
Farrow and Winograd, under indicator section). The results of our empirical study
are presented here with the few examples, such as the data on some of the branches
of the village ecosystem function—agriculture productivity, resource collection,
income of farm management, etc. The empirical studies were undertaken with a
view to understand the human and ecosystem interaction under changing environmental, political, and economic conditions. Following are the results from our
studies with a few basic examples which are described briefly in view of multifunctionality of the landscape research. For more detail, please see Nautiyal (1998),
Nautiyal et al. (2001a, 2003a, b, 2007), Nautiyal and Kaechele (2007a, b, c).
4.2 Innovation and People Behavior
We have studied why and how do people change their way of earnings (including
land use) under changing environment (natural, technological) and socioeconomic
conditions. We have considered what would be the implications of such changes in
Socioeconomic and Ecological Modeling for Sustainable …
603