These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22705856)

  • 1. Social factors and private benefits influence landholders' riverine restoration priorities in tropical Australia.
    Januchowski-Hartley SR; Moon K; Stoeckl N; Gray S
    J Environ Manage; 2012 Nov; 110():20-6. PubMed ID: 22705856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Personal circumstances and social characteristics as determinants of landholder participation in biodiversity conservation programs.
    Moon K; Marshall N; Cocklin C
    J Environ Manage; 2012 Dec; 113():292-300. PubMed ID: 23064247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Assessing conservation opportunity on private land: socio-economic, behavioral, and spatial dimensions.
    Raymond CM; Brown G
    J Environ Manage; 2011 Oct; 92(10):2513-23. PubMed ID: 21664035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A landholder-based approach to the design of private-land conservation programs.
    Moon K; Cocklin C
    Conserv Biol; 2011 Jun; 25(3):493-503. PubMed ID: 21309851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Public policy, private landholders: perspectives on policy mechanisms for sustainable land management.
    Cocklin C; Mautner N; Dibden J
    J Environ Manage; 2007 Dec; 85(4):986-98. PubMed ID: 17208349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Program Awareness, Social Capital, and Perceptions of Trees Influence Participation in Private Land Conservation Programs in Queensland, Australia.
    Simmons BA; Archibald CL; Wilson KA; Dean AJ
    Environ Manage; 2020 Sep; 66(3):289-304. PubMed ID: 32588074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Estimating landholders' probability of participating in a stewardship program, and the implications for spatial conservation priorities.
    Adams VM; Pressey RL; Stoeckl N
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(6):e97941. PubMed ID: 24892520
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Assessing the ecological and social benefits of private land conservation in Colorado.
    Wallace GN; Theobald DM; Ernst T; King K
    Conserv Biol; 2008 Apr; 22(2):284-96. PubMed ID: 18402582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The value of using feasibility models in systematic conservation planning to predict landholder management uptake.
    Tulloch AI; Tulloch VJ; Evans MC; Mills M
    Conserv Biol; 2014 Dec; 28(6):1462-73. PubMed ID: 25382827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Maintaining landholder satisfaction and management of private protected areas established under conservation agreements.
    Groce JE; Cook CN
    J Environ Manage; 2022 Mar; 305():114355. PubMed ID: 34953226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Psychosocial drivers of land management behaviour: How threats, norms, and context influence deforestation intentions.
    Simmons BA; Wilson KA; Dean AJ
    Ambio; 2021 Jul; 50(7):1364-1377. PubMed ID: 33496942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Understanding why landholders choose to participate or withdraw from conservation programs: a case study from a Queensland conservation auction.
    Comerford E
    J Environ Manage; 2014 Aug; 141():169-76. PubMed ID: 24815578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Mapping human and social dimensions of conservation opportunity for the scheduling of conservation action on private land.
    Knight AT; Cowling RM; Difford M; Campbell BM
    Conserv Biol; 2010 Oct; 24(5):1348-58. PubMed ID: 20345404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Using cost-effective targeting to enhance the efficiency of conservation investments in payments for ecosystem services.
    Chen X; Lupi F; Viña A; He G; Liu J
    Conserv Biol; 2010 Dec; 24(6):1469-78. PubMed ID: 20586786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Incentive structure of and private landowner participation in an endangered species conservation program.
    Sorice MG; Haider W; Conner JR; Ditton RB
    Conserv Biol; 2011 Jun; 25(3):587-96. PubMed ID: 21488955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Environmental Management in the Peri-urban Region: Psychological and Contextual Factors Influencing Private Land Conservation Actions.
    Uebel K; Rhodes J; Wilson KA; Dean AJ
    Environ Manage; 2021 Aug; 68(2):184-197. PubMed ID: 34125266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Explaining landholders' decisions about riparian zone management: the role of behavioural, normative, and control beliefs.
    Fielding KS; Terry DJ; Masser BM; Bordia P; Hogg MA
    J Environ Manage; 2005 Oct; 77(1):12-21. PubMed ID: 15946787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Tasmanian landowner preferences for conservation incentive programs: a latent class approach.
    Putten vI; Jennings SM; Louviere JJ; Burgess LB
    J Environ Manage; 2011 Oct; 92(10):2647-56. PubMed ID: 21719189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Planning forest restoration within private land holdings with conservation co-benefits at the landscape scale.
    Niemeyer J; Barros FSM; Silva DS; Crouzeilles R; Vale MM
    Sci Total Environ; 2020 May; 717():135262. PubMed ID: 31839295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Public investment does not crowd out private supply of environmental goods on private land.
    Duncan DH; Kyle G; Morris WK; Smith FP
    J Environ Manage; 2014 Apr; 136():94-102. PubMed ID: 24576670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.