Engineering Earth pp 1683-1700 | Cite as

America’s Military Footprint: Landscapes and Built Environments within the Continental U.S.

Chapter

Abstract

Megaprojects are huge in scale and cost and can have significant economic, social and environmental impacts, both positive and negative, on the surrounding landscape and communities. The U.S. military landscape is by far the largest, most expensive, and most enduring of the megaprojects addressed in this book. Indeed, America’s current military footprint has been evolving for more than 230 years and today includes more than 30 million acres within the nation’s states (Doe, 2008). Military lands comprise a unique component of the federal land management system in the U.S. These lands reflect the country’s development and history, beginning as coastal defenses and outposts on the frontier, to becoming major military installations that are self-contained municipalities. Controlled by the four Armed Services (Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps), military lands include all land within the “fenceline” of a military installation, including two primary areas: (1) the cantonment – the built up component or “city” that houses and supports military personnel and their families, and (2) the range and training complex – consisting of live-fire ranges, bombing ranges and maneuver areas for training and testing of personnel, units and equipment. Irrespective of base realignments and closings, the military landscape within the U.S. is destined to continue as the federal government’s largest, most expensive, and most enduring megaproject.

Keywords

Mojave Desert Federal Land Marine Corps Military Installation Federal Land Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bailey, R. G. (1998). Ecoregions: The ecosystem geography of the oceans and continents. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Balbach, H., Goran, W., Doe, W., & Latino, A. (2008). “U.S. military installation land management history,” Militarized landscapes conference, University of Bristol, UK, 3–7 September 2008.Google Scholar
  3. Bischoff, M. C. (2008). The desert training center/California-Arizona Maneuver area, 1942–1944: Historical and archaeological contexts, (Technical series 75; 145 pp). Tucson, AZ: Statistical Research.Google Scholar
  4. Crotty, W. (1995). Post-cold war policy: The social and domestic context (429 pp). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, A. D. (2009). Beyond an ‘inconvenient truth’: The army’s march towards operational sustainability. Army Magazine, April 2009, 27–32.Google Scholar
  6. Doe, W. W., III (2008). “The evolution of a land stewardship environmental ethic in U.S. army leaders and soldiers: Historical, educational and operational contexts,” Militarized landscapes conference, University of Bristol, UK, 3–7 September 2008.Google Scholar
  7. Doe, W. W., & Bailey, R. G. (2007). Military operating environments: An ecoregions framework to characterize U.S. army testing and training lands as operational analogs, Contract report, CEMML, Colorado State University, September 2007.Google Scholar
  8. Doe, W. W., Bailey, R. G., Harmon, R. S., King, W. C., & Palka, E. J. (2006). Natural environments for testing and training: Developing geographic analogs for an expeditionary army. 25th Army Science Conference, Proceedings, Orlando, FL. Retrieved November 2006, from http://www.asc2006.com/orals/OO-04.pdf
  9. Doe, W. W., R. B. Shaw, R. G. Bailey, D. S. Jones, & T. E. Macia (2005). U.S. army training & testing lands: An ecological framework for assessment. In E. J. Palka & F. A. Galgano (Eds.), Military geography from peace to war (pp. 395–415). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  10. Doe, W. W., Hayden, T. J., & Lacey, R. M. (2007). Military land use: Overview of DoD land uses in the desert southwest, including major natural resource management challenges. Invited paper, Proceedings from the DoD strategic environmental research & development program (SERDP) workshop – southwest region threatened, endangered, and at-risk species workshop: Managing within highly variable environments, Tucson, AZ, 22–26 October 2007.Google Scholar
  11. Military Times Media Group. (2009). Installations worldwide: 2009 guide. Springfield, VA.Google Scholar
  12. Nash, G. D. (1999). The federal landscape: An economic history of the twentieth century west (214 pp). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  13. Shaw, R. B., Doe, W. W., Palka, E. J., & Macia, T. E. (2000). Sustaining army lands for readiness in the 21st century. Military Review, LXXX(5), 68–77.Google Scholar
  14. Shaw, R. B., Doe, W. W., Palka, E. J., & Macia, T. E. (2005). Training a global force: Sustaining army land for 21st century readiness. In E. J. Palka & F. A. Galgano (Eds.), Military geography from peace to war (pp. 379–394). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Stein, B. A., Scott, C., & Benton, N. (2008). Federal lands and endangered species: The role of military and other federal lands in sustaining biodiversity. BioScience, 58(4), 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. U.S. Government Accounting Office. (2003). DOD approach to managing encroachment on training ranges still evolving. GAO-03-621T. 2 April 2003.Google Scholar
  17. Wilcox, W. A., Jr. (2007). The modern military and the environment: The laws of peace and war (179 pp). Lanham, MD: Government Institutes Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Warner College of Natural ResourcesColorado State UniversityFt. CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Geography and Environmental EngineeringU.S. Military AcademyWest PointUSA

Personalised recommendations