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 *

243 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30529417)

  • 1. Classifying private landowners to improve understanding of management decisions and conservation opportunities in urbanizing forested landscapes.
    Balukas JA; Bell KP; Bauer DM
    J Environ Manage; 2019 Feb; 232():751-758. PubMed ID: 30529417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of biological monitoring and results outreach on private landowner conservation management.
    Lutter SH; Dayer AA; Heggenstaller E; Larkin JL
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(4):e0194740. PubMed ID: 29617388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The Willingness of Non-Industrial Private Forest Owners to Enter California's Carbon Offset Market.
    Kelly EC; Gold GJ; Di Tommaso J
    Environ Manage; 2017 Nov; 60(5):882-895. PubMed ID: 28836080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Perpetual conservation easements and landowners: evaluating easement knowledge, satisfaction and partner organization relationships.
    Stroman DA; Kreuter UP
    J Environ Manage; 2014 Dec; 146():284-291. PubMed ID: 25190596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Changing landowners, changing ecosystem? Land-ownership motivations as drivers of land management practices.
    Sorice MG; Kreuter UP; Wilcox BP; Fox WE
    J Environ Manage; 2014 Jan; 133():144-52. PubMed ID: 24374464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Thinking Upstream: How Do Landowner Attitudes Affect Forested Riparian Buffer Coverage?
    Armstrong A; Stedman RC
    Environ Manage; 2020 May; 65(5):689-701. PubMed ID: 32086548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Factors affecting private forest landowner interest in ecosystem management: linking spatial and survey data.
    Jacobson MG
    Environ Manage; 2002 Oct; 30(4):577-83. PubMed ID: 12481923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Young Forest Conservation Incentive Programs: Explaining Re-Enrollment and Post-program Persistence.
    Lutter SH; Dayer AA; Larkin JL
    Environ Manage; 2019 Feb; 63(2):270-281. PubMed ID: 30535797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effects of preference heterogeneity among landowners on spatial conservation prioritization.
    Nielsen ASE; Strange N; Bruun HH; Jacobsen JB
    Conserv Biol; 2017 Jun; 31(3):675-685. PubMed ID: 27995662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The lay of the land: What we know about non-operating agricultural and absentee forest landowners in the U.S. and Europe.
    Fairchild E; Ulrich-Schad JD; Petrzelka P; Ma Z
    J Environ Manage; 2022 Jul; 313():114991. PubMed ID: 35367676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Anticipating changes in wildlife habitat induced by private forest owners' adaptation to climate change and carbon policy.
    Hashida Y; Withey J; Lewis DJ; Newman T; Kline JD
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(4):e0230525. PubMed ID: 32240191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Landowner Perceptions of Payments for Nature Conservation on Private Land.
    Yasué M; Kirkpatrick JB; Davison A; Gilfedder L
    Environ Manage; 2019 Sep; 64(3):287-302. PubMed ID: 31359092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Carrots and sticks: New Brunswick and Maine forest landowner perceptions toward incentives and regulations.
    Quartuch MR; Beckley TM
    Environ Manage; 2014 Jan; 53(1):202-18. PubMed ID: 24281917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessing landowner activities related to birds across rural-to-urban landscapes.
    Lepczyk CA; Mertig AG; Liu J
    Environ Manage; 2004 Jan; 33(1):110-25. PubMed ID: 14749899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Social and spatial relationships driving landowner attitudes towards aquatic conservation in a Piedmont-Blue Ridge landscape.
    Chambers SN; Baldwin RF; Baldwin ED; Bridges WC; Fouch N
    Heliyon; 2017 Apr; 3(4):e00288. PubMed ID: 28409186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Coupled ecological-social dynamics in a forested landscape: spatial interactions and information flow.
    Satake A; Leslie HM; Iwasa Y; Levin SA
    J Theor Biol; 2007 Jun; 246(4):695-707. PubMed ID: 17376488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Appreciation, use, and management of biodiversity and ecosystem services in California's working landscapes.
    Plieninger T; Ferranto S; Huntsinger L; Kelly M; Getz C
    Environ Manage; 2012 Sep; 50(3):427-40. PubMed ID: 22767213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The ability of land owners and their cooperatives to leverage payments greater than opportunity costs from conservation contracts.
    Lennox GD; Armsworth PR
    Conserv Biol; 2013 Jun; 27(3):625-34. PubMed ID: 23692023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.