No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The broad view of warfare ecology: response to Marler
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2014
Summary
A recent Comment article suggested replacing the established term warfare ecology with the name ‘military ecology’. This emerging and important sub-discipline requires an accurate, inclusive, and descriptive name. Maintaining the broad term warfare ecology reaches beyond the military to beyond to involve a much wider range of processes and stakeholders, including non-state parties and insurgencies, contractors, civilians, humanitarian and relief organizations, and reconstruction/restoration efforts. It has been adopted by practitioners from a similarly diverse range of disciplines, and used for important research that would not be included under a field limited to military studies.
- Type
- Comment
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2014
References
Boissiere, M., Sheil, D. & Basuki, I. (2011) A booming trade? How collection of war residues affects livelihoods and forest in Vietnam. International Forestry Review
13: 404–415.Google Scholar
Collins (2011) Collins English Dictionary. Complete and Unabridged 11th Edition. London, UK: HarperCollins Publishers [www document]. URL http://www.collinsdictionary.com
Google Scholar
Francis, R.A. (2011) The impacts of modern warfare on freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Management
48: 985–999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gorsevski, V., Kasischke, E., Dempewolf, J., Loboda, T. & Grossmann, F. (2012) Analysis of the impacts of armed conflict on the Eastern Afromontane forest region on the South Sudan: Uganda border using multitemporal Landsat imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment
118: 10–20.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P., Kuemmerlea, T., Kennedy, R.E., Abrudand, I.V., Knorna, J. & Hosterta, P. (2012) Using annual time-series of Landsat images to assess the effects of forest restitution in post-socialist Romania. Remote Sensing of Environment
118: 199–214.Google Scholar
Hanson, T., Brooks, T.M., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J.F., Machlis, G., Mittermeier, C.G., Mittermeier, R.A. & Pilgrim, J.D. (2009) Warfare in biodiversity hotspots. Conservation Biology
23: 578–587.Google Scholar
Hesse, R. (2014) Geomorphological traces of conflict in high-resolution elevation models. Applied Geography
46: 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenni, G.D.L., Peterson, M.N., Cubbage, F.W. & Jameson, J.K. (2012) Assessing biodiversity conservation conflict on military installations. Biological Conservation
153: 127–133.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.F., Kanderian, N., Shank, C.C., Rahmani, H., Lawson, D. & Smallwood, P. (2012) Setting priorities for protected area planning in a conflict zone: Afghanistan's National Protected Area System Plan. Biological Conservation
148: 146–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leaning, J. (2011) A public health approach to warfare. In: Warfare Ecology: A New Synthesis for Peace and Security, ed. Machlis, G.E., Hanson, T., Spiric, Z. & McEndry, J.E., pp. 133–153, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Marler, T.H. (2013) Military ecology more fitting than warfare ecology. Environmental Conservation
40: 207–208.Google Scholar
Stenuit, B.A. & Agathos, S. N. (2010) Microbial 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene degradation: could we learn from (bio)chemistry for bioremediation and vice versa?
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
88: 1043–1064.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tidball, K.G. & Krasny, M.E., eds (2014) Greening in the Red Zone. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Hanson Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material
File
12 KB