Pages with the most revisions

Jump to: navigation, search

Showing below up to 250 results in range #251 to #500.

View (previous 250 | next 250) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

  1. Germany.5‏‎ (4 revisions)
  2. OpTimber-LP‏‎ (4 revisions)
  3. ToSIA.Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  4. Austria.97‏‎ (4 revisions)
  5. Brazil-DSS usage at a company combining both short rotation plantations and natural forest management in their operation‏‎ (4 revisions)
  6. United Kingdom.8‏‎ (4 revisions)
  7. TAURON.Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  8. Spain.102‏‎ (4 revisions)
  9. Spain.68‏‎ (4 revisions)
  10. Finland.7‏‎ (4 revisions)
  11. Portugal.93‏‎ (4 revisions)
  12. Switzerland.92‏‎ (4 revisions)
  13. Wiki Semantic structure - DSS descriptions Workplan2013‏‎ (4 revisions)
  14. South Africa.47‏‎ (4 revisions)
  15. Estonia.124‏‎ (4 revisions)
  16. Greece.11‏‎ (4 revisions)
  17. Hungary.17‏‎ (4 revisions)
  18. Portugal.29‏‎ (4 revisions)
  19. Switzerland.117‏‎ (4 revisions)
  20. Hungary.82‏‎ (4 revisions)
  21. Requirement of specialized skills can discourage some potential users‏‎ (4 revisions)
  22. Brazil-DSS usage on short rotation eucalyptus pulp wood plantations‏‎ (4 revisions)
  23. Spatial variation between regions led to the development of different regional models, which led to‏‎ (4 revisions)
  24. Ireland.3‏‎ (4 revisions)
  25. Slovenia.18‏‎ (4 revisions)
  26. As the core of forest DSS are models describing the development of trees and stands (growth and‏‎ (4 revisions)
  27. United Kingdom.109‏‎ (4 revisions)
  28. Brazil.38‏‎ (4 revisions)
  29. Sweden.75‏‎ (4 revisions)
  30. Analysis at the landscape level allowed the integration of concerns about multiple resources as well‏‎ (4 revisions)
  31. Spain.33‏‎ (4 revisions)
  32. Spain.88‏‎ (4 revisions)
  33. Germany.1‏‎ (4 revisions)
  34. Estonia.76‏‎ (4 revisions)
  35. Brazil-DSS usage on sustainable natural forest management in the Amazon basin‏‎ (4 revisions)
  36. Hungary.1‏‎ (4 revisions)
  37. Portugal.36‏‎ (4 revisions)
  38. Switzerland.54‏‎ (4 revisions)
  39. Model building was rapid, it was assembling the data that took by far the most time‏‎ (4 revisions)
  40. Netherlands.131‏‎ (4 revisions)
  41. The software did not provide much support for formatting of the outputs in a format that could be‏‎ (4 revisions)
  42. SADfLOR/DECfLOR‏‎ (4 revisions)
  43. United States.1‏‎ (4 revisions)
  44. Slovenia.104‏‎ (4 revisions)
  45. Projection of stand development increases knowledge base‏‎ (4 revisions)
  46. Ireland.64‏‎ (4 revisions)
  47. Austria.19‏‎ (4 revisions)
  48. China.40‏‎ (4 revisions)
  49. Russia.61‏‎ (4 revisions)
  50. DSS-WuK‏‎ (4 revisions)
  51. Denmark.5‏‎ (4 revisions)
  52. J‏‎ (4 revisions)
  53. Chile.65‏‎ (4 revisions)
  54. ToSIA.Software‏‎ (4 revisions)
  55. Spain.61‏‎ (4 revisions)
  56. Brazil-DSS usage on teak plantation‏‎ (4 revisions)
  57. Finland.24‏‎ (4 revisions)
  58. Switzerland.81‏‎ (4 revisions)
  59. Germany.122‏‎ (4 revisions)
  60. Italy-Analysis of logging residues chain for a sustainable bioenergy production in Alta Val di Non‏‎ (4 revisions)
  61. Norway.96‏‎ (4 revisions)
  62. South Africa.13‏‎ (4 revisions)
  63. Austria‏‎ (4 revisions)
  64. Hungary.15‏‎ (4 revisions)
  65. Portugal.23‏‎ (4 revisions)
  66. Hungary.66‏‎ (4 revisions)
  67. OffREval‏‎ (4 revisions)
  68. SGIS.Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  69. Denmark.75‏‎ (4 revisions)
  70. Ireland.116‏‎ (4 revisions)
  71. Slovenia.114‏‎ (4 revisions)
  72. Ireland.90‏‎ (4 revisions)
  73. Germany.68‏‎ (4 revisions)
  74. United Kingdom.103‏‎ (4 revisions)
  75. Sweden.52‏‎ (4 revisions)
  76. Italy-Assessing forest functions at stand scale in a sub-regional forest plan in the Dolomites‏‎ (4 revisions)
  77. Austria-Improving forestry extension services for small-scale private landowners‏‎ (4 revisions)
  78. Spain.128‏‎ (4 revisions)
  79. Belgium-BoLa a specific sDSS to support land use planning in Flanders‏‎ (4 revisions)
  80. Spain.69‏‎ (4 revisions)
  81. SIPAFIT sub-systems have been useful in training activities, and can be very useful to explain and‏‎ (4 revisions)
  82. Canada.31‏‎ (4 revisions)
  83. Portugal.95‏‎ (4 revisions)
  84. 2. Exploring options‏‎ (4 revisions)
  85. Norway.1‏‎ (4 revisions)
  86. South Africa.78‏‎ (4 revisions)
  87. Estonia.25‏‎ (4 revisions)
  88. Greece.69‏‎ (4 revisions)
  89. Hungary.2‏‎ (4 revisions)
  90. Portugal.31‏‎ (4 revisions)
  91. Switzerland.12‏‎ (4 revisions)
  92. Hungary.89‏‎ (4 revisions)
  93. T(ree).Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  94. New Zealand-Modular Forest Management DSS in NZ‏‎ (4 revisions)
  95. WRR-DSS‏‎ (4 revisions)
  96. Operational aspects of the system should be enhanced‏‎ (4 revisions)
  97. Spain-An agro-ecological Decision Support Systems for evaluting soil under scenarios of global change‏‎ (4 revisions)
  98. Forest managers have to analyze how their forest management interventions effect the landscape‏‎ (4 revisions)
  99. United States.33‏‎ (4 revisions)
  100. Metodology and results are transparent and easy-to-share to non-expert stakeholders‏‎ (4 revisions)
  101. Morocco.33‏‎ (4 revisions)
  102. Ireland.47‏‎ (4 revisions)
  103. Slovenia.45‏‎ (4 revisions)
  104. Italy-ProgettoBosco a data-driven DSS for forest planning: an application in Abruzzo Region‏‎ (4 revisions)
  105. Russia.122‏‎ (4 revisions)
  106. CoPWorkingGroup‏‎ (4 revisions)
  107. Brazil.44‏‎ (4 revisions)
  108. Sweden.93‏‎ (4 revisions)
  109. Denmark.36‏‎ (4 revisions)
  110. SifPlan.Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  111. Use of the DSS has been considered successful by the participating organizations, even though it has‏‎ (4 revisions)
  112. TerEval.Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  113. Chile.124‏‎ (4 revisions)
  114. Finland.1‏‎ (4 revisions)
  115. Portugal-A Decision Support System for eucalypt forest management under climate change scenarios‏‎ (4 revisions)
  116. Portugal.41‏‎ (4 revisions)
  117. Switzerland.58‏‎ (4 revisions)
  118. Germany.120‏‎ (4 revisions)
  119. South Africa.123‏‎ (4 revisions)
  120. Case Study Technical Committee‏‎ (4 revisions)
  121. The analysis team used internal prototyping, which helped train the staff and identify possible‏‎ (4 revisions)
  122. Portugal.108‏‎ (4 revisions)
  123. Forest multi-decision maker regional planning at the Portuguese Chamusca County‏‎ (4 revisions)
  124. Hungary.6‏‎ (4 revisions)
  125. Netherlands.132‏‎ (4 revisions)
  126. Italy.1‏‎ (4 revisions)
  127. Ireland.81‏‎ (4 revisions)
  128. Austria.83‏‎ (4 revisions)
  129. China.43‏‎ (4 revisions)
  130. Forest Maps‏‎ (4 revisions)
  131. Enabling the analyses of several ecosystem services (timber and non-timber resources) in one and the‏‎ (4 revisions)
  132. Chile.84‏‎ (4 revisions)
  133. Spain.62‏‎ (4 revisions)
  134. Finland.63‏‎ (4 revisions)
  135. Canada.1‏‎ (4 revisions)
  136. Portugal.75‏‎ (4 revisions)
  137. Switzerland.9‏‎ (4 revisions)
  138. South Africa.19‏‎ (4 revisions)
  139. Estonia.102‏‎ (4 revisions)
  140. Hungary.16‏‎ (4 revisions)
  141. Hungary.80‏‎ (4 revisions)
  142. SØK.Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  143. Italy.56‏‎ (4 revisions)
  144. United States.21‏‎ (4 revisions)
  145. Ireland.125‏‎ (4 revisions)
  146. Slovenia.14‏‎ (4 revisions)
  147. End user engagement throughout the development and deployment cycle is very important‏‎ (4 revisions)
  148. KM vocabularies‏‎ (4 revisions)
  149. Brazil.37‏‎ (4 revisions)
  150. Stakeholder involvement‏‎ (4 revisions)
  151. Sweden.67‏‎ (4 revisions)
  152. Decision criteria beyond the state of the ecosystem (for example, social values fire risk, economic‏‎ (4 revisions)
  153. Spain.31‏‎ (4 revisions)
  154. Spain.79‏‎ (4 revisions)
  155. STSM Opportunity MBMS development‏‎ (4 revisions)
  156. Canada.75‏‎ (4 revisions)
  157. Portugal.98‏‎ (4 revisions)
  158. Providing procedures and structure for data flow from selection of field sample, performing field‏‎ (4 revisions)
  159. Norway.39‏‎ (4 revisions)
  160. South Africa.85‏‎ (4 revisions)
  161. Estonia.50‏‎ (4 revisions)
  162. Portugal-Integrating an ecosystem model into SADfLOR Decision Support platform for optimal forest management planning under changing climate in boreal conditions.‏‎ (4 revisions)
  163. Hungary.37‏‎ (4 revisions)
  164. Portugal.34‏‎ (4 revisions)
  165. Switzerland.40‏‎ (4 revisions)
  166. Hungary.94‏‎ (4 revisions)
  167. Microforest‏‎ (4 revisions)
  168. Despite the widely use and acceptance of the DSS there was still a lack of expertise to‏‎ (4 revisions)
  169. Question 1: Which DSSs can support the KM processes?‏‎ (4 revisions)
  170. ClimChAlp.Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  171. Stakeholder involvement in DSS design‏‎ (4 revisions)
  172. SIPAFIT.Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  173. United States.65‏‎ (4 revisions)
  174. Slovenia.101‏‎ (4 revisions)
  175. Morocco.99‏‎ (4 revisions)
  176. Ireland.56‏‎ (4 revisions)
  177. Slovenia.48‏‎ (4 revisions)
  178. Which lessons are about knowledge management‏‎ (4 revisions)
  179. Austria.111‏‎ (4 revisions)
  180. China.106‏‎ (4 revisions)
  181. Russia.20‏‎ (4 revisions)
  182. United Kingdom.13‏‎ (4 revisions)
  183. Denmark.46‏‎ (4 revisions)
  184. Chile.39‏‎ (4 revisions)
  185. Spain.51‏‎ (4 revisions)
  186. Finland.122‏‎ (4 revisions)
  187. Sweden-The history of a successfull forest DSS in Sweden‏‎ (4 revisions)
  188. Enlarge the decision space by generating a large set of potential management alternatives‏‎ (3 revisions)
  189. Tool‏‎ (3 revisions)
  190. Portugal.119‏‎ (3 revisions)
  191. Hungary.61‏‎ (3 revisions)
  192. United States.65.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  193. Netherlands.133‏‎ (3 revisions)
  194. Slovenia.101.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  195. Ireland.56.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  196. Slovenia.48.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  197. Italy.126‏‎ (3 revisions)
  198. Austria.111.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  199. Guidelines/Problem Type 4‏‎ (3 revisions)
  200. China.106.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  201. Russia.20.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  202. United Kingdom.13.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  203. Denmark.46.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  204. Germany-Actor Network Theory to Understand Collaborative Decision Support Systems Development in Forest Management Practice‏‎ (3 revisions)
  205. Chile.39.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  206. Spain.51.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  207. HARVEST.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  208. China.60‏‎ (3 revisions)
  209. Russia.8‏‎ (3 revisions)
  210. Finland.122.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  211. Portugal-Supporting a multi stakeholders decision process in a Portuguese National Forest‏‎ (3 revisions)
  212. Sweden.14‏‎ (3 revisions)
  213. Portugal.53.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  214. Switzerland.73.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  215. NetWeaver‏‎ (3 revisions)
  216. Germany.121.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  217. Norway.95.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  218. South Africa.127.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  219. Chile.93‏‎ (3 revisions)
  220. Hungary.122.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  221. United States-The restoration strategy of the dry and mesic landscape in the Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest‏‎ (3 revisions)
  222. Canada.26‏‎ (3 revisions)
  223. Portugal.119.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  224. Hungary.61.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  225. Netherlands.133.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  226. Italy.126.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  227. Guidelines/Problem Type 5‏‎ (3 revisions)
  228. DSD.Software‏‎ (3 revisions)
  229. STSM opportunity Sweden FMPP implementation process‏‎ (3 revisions)
  230. MatrixGen‏‎ (3 revisions)
  231. Denmark.71.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  232. Germany-Using GISCAME to test alternative land-use scenarios under climate change in the Upper Elbe Valley‏‎ (3 revisions)
  233. Slovenia.113.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  234. Multiple DSS are often needed to meet complex needs‏‎ (3 revisions)
  235. Ireland.84.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  236. Germany.5.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  237. ToSIA.Description of DSS development‏‎ (3 revisions)
  238. Austria.97.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  239. China.60.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  240. Russia.8.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  241. United Kingdom.8.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  242. Sweden.14.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  243. United States.31‏‎ (3 revisions)
  244. Morocco.118‏‎ (3 revisions)
  245. Question: DSS for exploring options‏‎ (3 revisions)
  246. Getting joint funding from both the forest and environmental sectors can be a successfull for‏‎ (3 revisions)
  247. Spain.102.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  248. Chile.93.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  249. Russia.113‏‎ (3 revisions)
  250. Spain.68.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)

View (previous 250 | next 250) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)