Pages with the most revisions

From COST Action FP0804: FORSYS
Jump to: navigation, search

Showing below up to 500 results starting with #1.

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

  1. WIS.2‏‎ (200 revisions)
  2. Knowledge Management tools‏‎ (188 revisions)
  3. Main Page‏‎ (99 revisions)
  4. LEaRNForME‏‎ (89 revisions)
  5. User's manual‏‎ (86 revisions)
  6. EMDS‏‎ (71 revisions)
  7. DSS architecture and design‏‎ (70 revisions)
  8. Umea 2013 Wiki WorkshopA‏‎ (68 revisions)
  9. Capsis‏‎ (68 revisions)
  10. Knowledge Management processes‏‎ (61 revisions)
  11. EFIMOD‏‎ (61 revisions)
  12. Practi-SFM‏‎ (57 revisions)
  13. Spectrum‏‎ (56 revisions)
  14. MfLOR‏‎ (56 revisions)
  15. DTRAN‏‎ (54 revisions)
  16. Participatory processes‏‎ (53 revisions)
  17. SIMPPLLE‏‎ (51 revisions)
  18. SGIS‏‎ (49 revisions)
  19. Case Study Guidelines‏‎ (47 revisions)
  20. MCDM Overview‏‎ (45 revisions)
  21. LANDIS‏‎ (43 revisions)
  22. ProgettoBosco‏‎ (43 revisions)
  23. SADPOF‏‎ (42 revisions)
  24. MAPSS‏‎ (39 revisions)
  25. Wg4 workplan‏‎ (38 revisions)
  26. Example DSS‏‎ (38 revisions)
  27. SIMO‏‎ (38 revisions)
  28. Heureka‏‎ (37 revisions)
  29. Natural Resources Planning in Metsähallitus‏‎ (36 revisions)
  30. FORSYS FAQ‏‎ (33 revisions)
  31. GAYA‏‎ (33 revisions)
  32. DSD‏‎ (33 revisions)
  33. Participatory forest planning using MCDA in northern Sweden‏‎ (32 revisions)
  34. Case Study Committee Workplan‏‎ (31 revisions)
  35. CONES‏‎ (31 revisions)
  36. Wiki Issue list‏‎ (30 revisions)
  37. Case Study Literature DSS‏‎ (30 revisions)
  38. United States-Boise-Payette-Sawtooth National Forest Plan‏‎ (29 revisions)
  39. LMS‏‎ (28 revisions)
  40. PYL‏‎ (27 revisions)
  41. ForMIS‏‎ (27 revisions)
  42. ESC‏‎ (26 revisions)
  43. My test‏‎ (26 revisions)
  44. SADfLOR‏‎ (26 revisions)
  45. Heureka/PlanWise‏‎ (25 revisions)
  46. Types of knowledge‏‎ (25 revisions)
  47. Participation in forest planning in southern Italy‏‎ (24 revisions)
  48. SIPAFIT‏‎ (23 revisions)
  49. Guidelines for the Country Report‏‎ (23 revisions)
  50. Estonia (Country Report)‏‎ (23 revisions)
  51. Case Studies‏‎ (23 revisions)
  52. NED‏‎ (22 revisions)
  53. ATestCase‏‎ (22 revisions)
  54. Case-Lessons by WG themes matrix‏‎ (21 revisions)
  55. Wg3 workplan‏‎ (21 revisions)
  56. 1. Defining the problem‏‎ (21 revisions)
  57. Esc‏‎ (21 revisions - redirect page)
  58. Lessons Group Workplan 2013‏‎ (21 revisions)
  59. ForestGALES‏‎ (21 revisions)
  60. DSS description Handbook‏‎ (21 revisions)
  61. EMIS‏‎ (20 revisions)
  62. SADMVMC‏‎ (20 revisions)
  63. AVVIRK-2000‏‎ (19 revisions)
  64. 2011-06 Thessaloniki Case Study Notes by WG‏‎ (18 revisions)
  65. Question: Which DSSs have spatial context‏‎ (18 revisions)
  66. Participatory planning case template‏‎ (18 revisions)
  67. Wg1 workplan‏‎ (18 revisions)
  68. Has description‏‎ (17 revisions)
  69. FMPP‏‎ (17 revisions)
  70. Woodstock‏‎ (16 revisions)
  71. Vista‏‎ (15 revisions)
  72. Wiki TaskForce‏‎ (15 revisions)
  73. SADfLOR/SAGfLOR‏‎ (14 revisions)
  74. Import Lessons from test wiki‏‎ (14 revisions)
  75. Classification of Knowledge Management tools‏‎ (14 revisions)
  76. Mesta‏‎ (14 revisions)
  77. FFIREDESSYS‏‎ (14 revisions)
  78. Need of flexibilization of analytical tools - no overdesigned tool that provides too much features for the use‏‎ (14 revisions)
  79. Wg2 workplan‏‎ (14 revisions)
  80. Agflor‏‎ (13 revisions)
  81. Conifer Timber Quality‏‎ (13 revisions)
  82. EnerTree‏‎ (13 revisions)
  83. MELA‏‎ (13 revisions)
  84. Case Studies Analysis‏‎ (13 revisions)
  85. Herbicideadvisor‏‎ (12 revisions)
  86. Case Studies List‏‎ (12 revisions)
  87. ToSIA‏‎ (12 revisions)
  88. SADfLOR/INfLOR‏‎ (11 revisions)
  89. Question: Question: Which DSSs use Stochastic programming‏‎ (11 revisions)
  90. It would have been better to involve some end users at earlier stages of the system development‏‎ (11 revisions)
  91. Monsu‏‎ (11 revisions)
  92. Which kinds of DSS focus on landscape quality‏‎ (11 revisions)
  93. COST Action FP0804: FORSYS:Community Portal‏‎ (11 revisions)
  94. Lower-case property values (import error)‏‎ (11 revisions)
  95. OSMOSE‏‎ (11 revisions)
  96. Emis‏‎ (11 revisions - redirect page)
  97. MONTE‏‎ (10 revisions)
  98. Guideline‏‎ (10 revisions)
  99. Lessons from Country Studies‏‎ (10 revisions)
  100. AFFOREST-sDSS‏‎ (10 revisions)
  101. Test‏‎ (10 revisions)
  102. Question: What FMDSS information is available related to climate change‏‎ (10 revisions)
  103. Guidelines/Problem Type 1‏‎ (10 revisions)
  104. The Forest Time Machine‏‎ (10 revisions)
  105. RPF‏‎ (10 revisions)
  106. Update detailed documentation of how to create / edit new DSSs‏‎ (10 revisions)
  107. HMSS‏‎ (10 revisions)
  108. Question: Which DSSs are developed/used to address that specific Forsys problem?‏‎ (9 revisions)
  109. The definition of standardized and specific criteria for selecting and zoning forest compartment‏‎ (9 revisions)
  110. Hugin‏‎ (9 revisions)
  111. Question: What kind of decision support techniques are implemented in DSS‏‎ (9 revisions)
  112. 2011-11 Leuven Case Study Agenda‏‎ (9 revisions)
  113. Test template‏‎ (9 revisions)
  114. EFISCEN‏‎ (9 revisions)
  115. Properties - Has domain - Has DSS development stage‏‎ (9 revisions)
  116. Neighbourhood interrelations should be included in the generator‏‎ (9 revisions)
  117. To compare the current and the past quantitative-qualitative parameters of the forest, great effort‏‎ (9 revisions)
  118. Question: Which DSSs were developed by large team of people‏‎ (8 revisions)
  119. Success criteria‏‎ (8 revisions)
  120. The choice to develop the system in an Excel environment was based on the status of computer‏‎ (8 revisions)
  121. The use of structured output (maps, tables and charts) makes the methodology and the results more‏‎ (8 revisions)
  122. Заглавная страница‏‎ (8 revisions)
  123. FVS‏‎ (8 revisions)
  124. Users preferred enhanced functionality rather than useability‏‎ (8 revisions)
  125. Import queries and other pages from the testwiki‏‎ (8 revisions)
  126. Contry Report Category‏‎ (8 revisions)
  127. Using Actor Network Theory in the design stage can help in understanding the dynamism of the network‏‎ (8 revisions)
  128. GB Forestry DSS‏‎ (8 revisions)
  129. Adapting the software to make it possible to easily include also the output of other mechanistic‏‎ (8 revisions)
  130. Question: Which DSSs support multiple objectives‏‎ (8 revisions)
  131. The adoption of the collaborative learning method made possible to gradually select the conceptual‏‎ (8 revisions)
  132. Case Study Literature Methods‏‎ (8 revisions)
  133. Students studying forest management planning procedures and processes were very useful product testers‏‎ (8 revisions)
  134. Provide a simple version of the DSS, which new users can try out and learn quickly‏‎ (7 revisions)
  135. STSM Call 2012-12‏‎ (7 revisions)
  136. Provide missing help-documentation service‏‎ (7 revisions)
  137. Visualization of the preliminary actor network made the people explicity include the DSS in a planning process‏‎ (7 revisions)
  138. 2011-06 Thessaloniki Case Study Notes by Research Phase‏‎ (7 revisions)
  139. The DSS models built must match the knowledge of the local forest managers, so the ability for local‏‎ (7 revisions)
  140. Sim4Tree‏‎ (7 revisions)
  141. DSS allowed to explain better some technical concepts to non-professional stakeholders‏‎ (7 revisions)
  142. Participation in forest planning in Sardinia‏‎ (7 revisions)
  143. The fact that ProgettoBosco is conceived according to the criteria and indicators of sustainable‏‎ (7 revisions)
  144. The kinds of DSS traditionally used to calculate timber harvest levels are now being used to model‏‎ (7 revisions)
  145. Actor Network Theory provides a suitable lens for exploring both technical and human aspects of DSS institutionalization in the forestry domain‏‎ (7 revisions)
  146. Participatory Planning in a Pulpwood Supply Chain Planning in a Portuguese integrated Pulp and Paper Company‏‎ (7 revisions)
  147. Need for new models for the later use of a tool‏‎ (7 revisions)
  148. TerEval‏‎ (7 revisions)
  149. DSS can help in varying the treatment according to more than one forest function‏‎ (7 revisions)
  150. TEAMS‏‎ (7 revisions)
  151. Regular ongoing engagement helped maintain interest of users‏‎ (7 revisions)
  152. Need of a moderator function‏‎ (7 revisions)
  153. Geo-SIMA-HWIND‏‎ (7 revisions)
  154. SIPAFIT can act sometimes as a referee to settle arguments among experts, users and stakeholders‏‎ (7 revisions)
  155. Case-Lessons by ID with WG themes‏‎ (7 revisions)
  156. Community of Practice‏‎ (7 revisions)
  157. Wiki editing‏‎ (7 revisions)
  158. HaRPPS‏‎ (6 revisions)
  159. Finland-Strategic planning at the national forest administration‏‎ (6 revisions)
  160. A a test lesson‏‎ (6 revisions)
  161. Criterium DecisionPlus‏‎ (6 revisions)
  162. ETÇAP‏‎ (6 revisions)
  163. FORSYS Problem dimensions - necessary or not for Lesson‏‎ (6 revisions)
  164. Import data Methods and Dimensions (WG2)‏‎ (6 revisions)
  165. The development of large and enduring systems requires a long term approach‏‎ (6 revisions)
  166. A financial analysis is an important component in the discussion about the preferences of different‏‎ (6 revisions)
  167. Italy-A comprehensive system for forest management planning in Trentino Province‏‎ (6 revisions)
  168. T(ree)‏‎ (6 revisions)
  169. Methods and Models‏‎ (6 revisions)
  170. An optimisation module comparing alternative scenarios based on multi-criteria analysis should be‏‎ (6 revisions)
  171. Some pages do not display‏‎ (6 revisions)
  172. Question: DSS for evaluating options‏‎ (6 revisions)
  173. The scope of the modeling project can change significantly during the project‏‎ (6 revisions)
  174. Enlarged decision space‏‎ (6 revisions)
  175. Embedding a DSS in a GIS software allows obtaining information at different spatial scales using the‏‎ (6 revisions)
  176. From a management perspective, to avoid the complication of testing something new, the models used‏‎ (6 revisions)
  177. HARVEST‏‎ (6 revisions)
  178. Combo box vs. multiple values (Has other models)‏‎ (6 revisions)
  179. Wiki User's glossary‏‎ (6 revisions)
  180. The activation of an iterative process through periodical meetings permitted to all the stakeholders‏‎ (6 revisions)
  181. Heureka/RegWise‏‎ (6 revisions)
  182. 3. Evaluating options‏‎ (6 revisions)
  183. SimForTree‏‎ (6 revisions)
  184. The tracing of the current actor network interactions made the group realize that they need a different kind of stakeholders from what they previously thought‏‎ (6 revisions)
  185. New structure of the wiki start page‏‎ (6 revisions)
  186. DSS for managing forest fire casualties‏‎ (6 revisions)
  187. Herbicide Advisor‏‎ (6 revisions)
  188. The analysis of the actor network interactions allowed to identify the criticalities to be solved in order to develop the collaborative process‏‎ (6 revisions)
  189. Information about the properties‏‎ (6 revisions)
  190. Case Studies Lessons List‏‎ (6 revisions)
  191. It is necessary to know which data will be use as variables in the models before designing the DSS‏‎ (5 revisions)
  192. DSS helped document and apply decision criteria consistently, and therefore produced a more‏‎ (5 revisions)
  193. To meet the needs of customer - the Forest Service - and to obtain satisfying results the‏‎ (5 revisions)
  194. Use of adequate DSS development methodology‏‎ (5 revisions)
  195. Quality flag: implementation still hanging‏‎ (5 revisions)
  196. TAURON‏‎ (5 revisions)
  197. TestTable‏‎ (5 revisions)
  198. SiWaWa‏‎ (5 revisions)
  199. The DSS gave the forest manager the opportunity to experiment how their emphasis towards certain‏‎ (5 revisions)
  200. Lack of proper documentation and support services (manual, website, etc) can severely limit the‏‎ (5 revisions)
  201. Stakeholders contribution in ranking forest functions‏‎ (5 revisions)
  202. Lessons from Survey‏‎ (5 revisions)
  203. T‏‎ (5 revisions)
  204. Question: DSS Commercial Product‏‎ (5 revisions)
  205. An iterative process of presenting results to subject matter experts enabled them to better‏‎ (5 revisions)
  206. Some of the queries in FAQ are not yet implemented‏‎ (5 revisions)
  207. ClimChAlp‏‎ (5 revisions)
  208. FORESTAR‏‎ (5 revisions)
  209. Integration of decision support tools?‏‎ (5 revisions)
  210. DSS architecture and design Workplan 2013‏‎ (5 revisions)
  211. Test query‏‎ (5 revisions)
  212. SØK‏‎ (5 revisions)
  213. Knowledge management process - definitions of alternatives are not clear enough fro a non-expert user‏‎ (5 revisions)
  214. ForestGales‏‎ (5 revisions)
  215. SifPlan‏‎ (5 revisions)
  216. The tracing of the actor network supported the identification of the key actors influencing the collaborative DSS implementation and institutionalization‏‎ (5 revisions)
  217. VDDT-Path‏‎ (5 revisions)
  218. Help page navigation link changed to Category:Help‏‎ (5 revisions)
  219. Interpretative case studies can help reduce the gap between research and practice‏‎ (5 revisions)
  220. Afforestion and deforestation options should be included in the management options‏‎ (5 revisions)
  221. Switzerland.73‏‎ (4 revisions)
  222. Chile.65‏‎ (4 revisions)
  223. T2‏‎ (4 revisions)
  224. Austria.83‏‎ (4 revisions)
  225. Russia.61‏‎ (4 revisions)
  226. Stakeholder involvement in DSS design‏‎ (4 revisions)
  227. SGIS.Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  228. United States.21‏‎ (4 revisions)
  229. Slovenia.101‏‎ (4 revisions)
  230. Slovenia.48‏‎ (4 revisions)
  231. Portugal.31‏‎ (4 revisions)
  232. Brazil.37‏‎ (4 revisions)
  233. Portugal.95‏‎ (4 revisions)
  234. Forest managers have to analyze how their forest management interventions effect the landscape‏‎ (4 revisions)
  235. Ireland.56‏‎ (4 revisions)
  236. The analysis team used internal prototyping, which helped train the staff and identify possible‏‎ (4 revisions)
  237. Spain.51‏‎ (4 revisions)
  238. Hungary.16‏‎ (4 revisions)
  239. Hungary.80‏‎ (4 revisions)
  240. Canada.75‏‎ (4 revisions)
  241. Sweden-The history of a successfull forest DSS in Sweden‏‎ (4 revisions)
  242. Germany.121‏‎ (4 revisions)
  243. T4‏‎ (4 revisions)
  244. WRR-DSS‏‎ (4 revisions)
  245. South Africa.127‏‎ (4 revisions)
  246. Estonia.124‏‎ (4 revisions)
  247. Norway.95‏‎ (4 revisions)
  248. United States.65‏‎ (4 revisions)
  249. Switzerland.92‏‎ (4 revisions)
  250. It should be possible to specify the rotation time of a species not only by age but also by target‏‎ (4 revisions)
  251. Portugal-A Decision Support System for eucalypt forest management under climate change scenarios‏‎ (4 revisions)
  252. Forest multi-decision maker regional planning at the Portuguese Chamusca County‏‎ (4 revisions)
  253. Switzerland.117‏‎ (4 revisions)
  254. OpTimber-LP‏‎ (4 revisions)
  255. Slovenia.113‏‎ (4 revisions)
  256. Portugal.108‏‎ (4 revisions)
  257. Portugal.41‏‎ (4 revisions)
  258. 2. Exploring options‏‎ (4 revisions)
  259. Ireland.84‏‎ (4 revisions)
  260. Spain.102‏‎ (4 revisions)
  261. Spain.68‏‎ (4 revisions)
  262. Hungary.37‏‎ (4 revisions)
  263. Finland.1‏‎ (4 revisions)
  264. Hungary.94‏‎ (4 revisions)
  265. Forest Maps‏‎ (4 revisions)
  266. Germany.68‏‎ (4 revisions)
  267. CoPWorkingGroup‏‎ (4 revisions)
  268. South Africa.47‏‎ (4 revisions)
  269. Estonia.76‏‎ (4 revisions)
  270. Denmark.5‏‎ (4 revisions)
  271. Switzerland.54‏‎ (4 revisions)
  272. Chile.124‏‎ (4 revisions)
  273. Use of the DSS has been considered successful by the participating organizations, even though it has‏‎ (4 revisions)
  274. Austria.111‏‎ (4 revisions)
  275. Russia.122‏‎ (4 revisions)
  276. Spatial variation between regions led to the development of different regional models, which led to‏‎ (4 revisions)
  277. Enabling the analyses of several ecosystem services (timber and non-timber resources) in one and the‏‎ (4 revisions)
  278. STSM Opportunity MBMS development‏‎ (4 revisions)
  279. TAURON.Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  280. Slovenia.18‏‎ (4 revisions)
  281. Greece.69‏‎ (4 revisions)
  282. Model building was rapid, it was assembling the data that took by far the most time‏‎ (4 revisions)
  283. Brazil-DSS usage at a company combining both short rotation plantations and natural forest management in their operation‏‎ (4 revisions)
  284. Portugal.75‏‎ (4 revisions)
  285. United Kingdom.13‏‎ (4 revisions)
  286. Estonia.102‏‎ (4 revisions)
  287. Sweden.75‏‎ (4 revisions)
  288. Case Study Technical Committee‏‎ (4 revisions)
  289. Ireland.3‏‎ (4 revisions)
  290. DSS-WuK‏‎ (4 revisions)
  291. Spain.33‏‎ (4 revisions)
  292. Hungary.122‏‎ (4 revisions)
  293. Spain.88‏‎ (4 revisions)
  294. Finland.63‏‎ (4 revisions)
  295. Providing procedures and structure for data flow from selection of field sample, performing field‏‎ (4 revisions)
  296. SIPAFIT.Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  297. Germany.1‏‎ (4 revisions)
  298. China.43‏‎ (4 revisions)
  299. Denmark.75‏‎ (4 revisions)
  300. End user engagement throughout the development and deployment cycle is very important‏‎ (4 revisions)
  301. United States-The forest plan revision process in the Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest‏‎ (4 revisions)
  302. Switzerland.81‏‎ (4 revisions)
  303. Chile.84‏‎ (4 revisions)
  304. Austria.97‏‎ (4 revisions)
  305. Brazil-DSS usage on short rotation eucalyptus pulp wood plantations‏‎ (4 revisions)
  306. Slovenia.104‏‎ (4 revisions)
  307. Which lessons are about knowledge management‏‎ (4 revisions)
  308. Portugal-Integrating an ecosystem model into SADfLOR Decision Support platform for optimal forest management planning under changing climate in boreal conditions.‏‎ (4 revisions)
  309. Portugal.34‏‎ (4 revisions)
  310. Brazil.38‏‎ (4 revisions)
  311. Portugal.98‏‎ (4 revisions)
  312. Netherlands.131‏‎ (4 revisions)
  313. United Kingdom.8‏‎ (4 revisions)
  314. Ireland.64‏‎ (4 revisions)
  315. Sim4Tree.Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  316. Spain.61‏‎ (4 revisions)
  317. Hungary.17‏‎ (4 revisions)
  318. Hungary.82‏‎ (4 revisions)
  319. Question: DSS for defining a problem‏‎ (4 revisions)
  320. Germany.122‏‎ (4 revisions)
  321. J‏‎ (4 revisions)
  322. South Africa.13‏‎ (4 revisions)
  323. Estonia.25‏‎ (4 revisions)
  324. Denmark.36‏‎ (4 revisions)
  325. Morocco.33‏‎ (4 revisions)
  326. Brazil-DSS usage on sustainable natural forest management in the Amazon basin‏‎ (4 revisions)
  327. The very easy user-friendly interface of the software and the clearness of method can be exploited‏‎ (4 revisions)
  328. Question: Which DSS has strategic temporal scale‏‎ (4 revisions)
  329. Norway.96‏‎ (4 revisions)
  330. Switzerland.12‏‎ (4 revisions)
  331. OffREval‏‎ (4 revisions)
  332. Italy-Analysis of logging residues chain for a sustainable bioenergy production in Alta Val di Non‏‎ (4 revisions)
  333. As the core of forest DSS are models describing the development of trees and stands (growth and‏‎ (4 revisions)
  334. ToSIA.Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  335. T(ree).Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  336. Slovenia.114‏‎ (4 revisions)
  337. Metodology and results are transparent and easy-to-share to non-expert stakeholders‏‎ (4 revisions)
  338. Portugal.53‏‎ (4 revisions)
  339. United Kingdom.109‏‎ (4 revisions)
  340. Sweden.52‏‎ (4 revisions)
  341. Ireland.90‏‎ (4 revisions)
  342. Plan the system architecture based on a broad view of future possibilities‏‎ (4 revisions)
  343. Spain.128‏‎ (4 revisions)
  344. Hungary.1‏‎ (4 revisions)
  345. Brazil-DSS usage on teak plantation‏‎ (4 revisions)
  346. Spain.69‏‎ (4 revisions)
  347. Finland.122‏‎ (4 revisions)
  348. Ireland.116‏‎ (4 revisions)
  349. Italy-Assessing forest functions at stand scale in a sub-regional forest plan in the Dolomites‏‎ (4 revisions)
  350. China.106‏‎ (4 revisions)
  351. Wiki Semantic structure - DSS descriptions Workplan2013‏‎ (4 revisions)
  352. South Africa.78‏‎ (4 revisions)
  353. Norway.1‏‎ (4 revisions)
  354. Switzerland.58‏‎ (4 revisions)
  355. Operational aspects of the system should be enhanced‏‎ (4 revisions)
  356. Chile.39‏‎ (4 revisions)
  357. Analysis at the landscape level allowed the integration of concerns about multiple resources as well‏‎ (4 revisions)
  358. Austria.19‏‎ (4 revisions)
  359. Spain-An agro-ecological Decision Support Systems for evaluting soil under scenarios of global change‏‎ (4 revisions)
  360. Russia.20‏‎ (4 revisions)
  361. United States.1‏‎ (4 revisions)
  362. Slovenia.45‏‎ (4 revisions)
  363. Portugal.29‏‎ (4 revisions)
  364. Portugal.93‏‎ (4 revisions)
  365. Sweden.93‏‎ (4 revisions)
  366. Ireland.47‏‎ (4 revisions)
  367. Italy-ProgettoBosco a data-driven DSS for forest planning: an application in Abruzzo Region‏‎ (4 revisions)
  368. Belgium-BoLa a specific sDSS to support land use planning in Flanders‏‎ (4 revisions)
  369. Question 1: Which DSSs can support the KM processes?‏‎ (4 revisions)
  370. Hungary.15‏‎ (4 revisions)
  371. Running the DSS required special skills, therefore the local planning team required considerable‏‎ (4 revisions)
  372. Hungary.66‏‎ (4 revisions)
  373. Canada.31‏‎ (4 revisions)
  374. Finland.7‏‎ (4 revisions)
  375. Germany.120‏‎ (4 revisions)
  376. South Africa.123‏‎ (4 revisions)
  377. Decision criteria beyond the state of the ecosystem (for example, social values fire risk, economic‏‎ (4 revisions)
  378. The software did not provide much support for formatting of the outputs in a format that could be‏‎ (4 revisions)
  379. United States.33‏‎ (4 revisions)
  380. Switzerland.9‏‎ (4 revisions)
  381. Projection of stand development increases knowledge base‏‎ (4 revisions)
  382. SØK.Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  383. Italy.1‏‎ (4 revisions)
  384. TerEval.Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  385. Austria-Improving forestry extension services for small-scale private landowners‏‎ (4 revisions)
  386. Portugal.36‏‎ (4 revisions)
  387. Brazil.44‏‎ (4 revisions)
  388. ToSIA.Software‏‎ (4 revisions)
  389. Netherlands.132‏‎ (4 revisions)
  390. United Kingdom.103‏‎ (4 revisions)
  391. Ireland.81‏‎ (4 revisions)
  392. RPF.Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  393. Despite the widely use and acceptance of the DSS there was still a lack of expertise to‏‎ (4 revisions)
  394. Spain.62‏‎ (4 revisions)
  395. Hungary.2‏‎ (4 revisions)
  396. Hungary.89‏‎ (4 revisions)
  397. New Zealand-Modular Forest Management DSS in NZ‏‎ (4 revisions)
  398. Germany.5‏‎ (4 revisions)
  399. South Africa.19‏‎ (4 revisions)
  400. Estonia.50‏‎ (4 revisions)
  401. Denmark.46‏‎ (4 revisions)
  402. Morocco.99‏‎ (4 revisions)
  403. Requirement of specialized skills can discourage some potential users‏‎ (4 revisions)
  404. Switzerland.40‏‎ (4 revisions)
  405. SifPlan.Decision support techniques‏‎ (4 revisions)
  406. SIPAFIT sub-systems have been useful in training activities, and can be very useful to explain and‏‎ (4 revisions)
  407. Italy.56‏‎ (4 revisions)
  408. Slovenia.14‏‎ (4 revisions)
  409. Greece.11‏‎ (4 revisions)
  410. Microforest‏‎ (4 revisions)
  411. Portugal.23‏‎ (4 revisions)
  412. Stakeholder involvement‏‎ (4 revisions)
  413. Sweden.67‏‎ (4 revisions)
  414. Spain.31‏‎ (4 revisions)
  415. Spain.79‏‎ (4 revisions)
  416. Hungary.6‏‎ (4 revisions)
  417. Canada.1‏‎ (4 revisions)
  418. Finland.24‏‎ (4 revisions)
  419. Ireland.125‏‎ (4 revisions)
  420. China.40‏‎ (4 revisions)
  421. South Africa.85‏‎ (4 revisions)
  422. Estonia.86‏‎ (4 revisions)
  423. Denmark.71‏‎ (4 revisions)
  424. SADfLOR/DECfLOR‏‎ (4 revisions)
  425. Norway.39‏‎ (4 revisions)
  426. '''1. Defining the problem'''‏‎ (3 revisions)
  427. Italy.56.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  428. Slovenia.14.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  429. Greece.11.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  430. Guidelines/Problem Type 6‏‎ (3 revisions)
  431. Portugal.23.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  432. Portugal.71.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  433. United Kingdom.112.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  434. Sweden.67.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  435. Case Study Literature Methods Yin 2003‏‎ (3 revisions)
  436. Ireland.125.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  437. KUBIK‏‎ (3 revisions)
  438. Spain.31.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  439. Hungary.115.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  440. Results are always strongly dependent on the quality of the underlying data‏‎ (3 revisions)
  441. Hungary.6.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  442. Canada.1.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  443. Finland.24.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  444. United Kingdom.70‏‎ (3 revisions)
  445. China.40.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  446. South Africa.85.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  447. Denmark.71.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  448. Norway.39.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  449. Switzerland.73.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  450. Chile.65.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  451. Guidelines/Problem Type 7‏‎ (3 revisions)
  452. Austria.83.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  453. Question: Which DSSs can support the KM processes?‏‎ (3 revisions)
  454. Morocco.118‏‎ (3 revisions)
  455. The use of EMDS allowed the planning team to identify priority area for restoration treatments that‏‎ (3 revisions)
  456. Forest Gales‏‎ (3 revisions - redirect page)
  457. United States.21.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  458. Slovenia.101.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  459. Slovenia.48.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  460. MatrixGen‏‎ (3 revisions)
  461. Portugal.31.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  462. Brazil.37.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  463. Portugal.95.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  464. United Kingdom.70.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  465. Ireland.56.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  466. Germany-Actor Network Theory to Understand Collaborative Decision Support Systems Development in Forest Management Practice‏‎ (3 revisions)
  467. Italy.126‏‎ (3 revisions)
  468. DSSs‏‎ (3 revisions - redirect page)
  469. RODPOST‏‎ (3 revisions)
  470. Spain.51.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  471. Hungary.16.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  472. Hungary.80.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  473. Netherlands.133‏‎ (3 revisions)
  474. Canada.75.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  475. United Kingdom.108‏‎ (3 revisions)
  476. Sweden.14‏‎ (3 revisions)
  477. Case Studies List Full‏‎ (3 revisions)
  478. STSM Opportunities‏‎ (3 revisions)
  479. Germany.121.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  480. South Africa.127.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  481. Estonia.124.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  482. Morocco.118.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  483. Turkey.55‏‎ (3 revisions)
  484. Norway.95.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  485. United States.65.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  486. Switzerland.92.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  487. PEB‏‎ (3 revisions)
  488. China.100‏‎ (3 revisions)
  489. Portugal-Developing a collaborative management plan for the NIFP in Vale do Sousa‏‎ (3 revisions)
  490. Question: Which DSSs were developed in Italy‏‎ (3 revisions)
  491. NetWeaver‏‎ (3 revisions)
  492. Provide procedures and structure for complete data flow‏‎ (3 revisions)
  493. Switzerland.117.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  494. Germany-Using GISCAME to test alternative land-use scenarios under climate change in the Upper Elbe Valley‏‎ (3 revisions)
  495. Italy.126.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  496. Slovenia.113.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  497. Portugal.108.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  498. Portugal.41.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  499. Netherlands.133.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)
  500. United Kingdom.108.Decision support techniques‏‎ (3 revisions)

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