The concept of ‘wilderness’ — land untouched by human activity, existing outside and apart from human civilisation — turns out to be largely a cultural invention. Historians of the environment have shown that the landscapes Europeans encountered when they arrived in the Americas and Australia were not pristine wilderness but the result of thousands of years of management by Indigenous peoples: burning, clearing, hunting, planting, and the cultivation of relationships with specific animal and plant species. When European colonisers killed or displaced the people who managed these landscapes, the landscapes themselves changed — sometimes dramatically.
The idea of wilderness as pristine and uninhabited served particular ideological purposes. It justified the dispossession of Indigenous peoples by denying that they had meaningfully ‘improved’ the land (a concept drawn from Locke’s labour theory of property: land becomes property only when mixed with productive labour). It also provided the intellectual foundation for conservation movements that sought to preserve wilderness by removing people from it — including the Indigenous people for whom those landscapes were home.
Contemporary conservation thinking has partly moved away from this model. The concept of ‘biocultural diversity’ holds that ecological health and cultural diversity are intertwined: Indigenous land management practices have, in many cases, been more sustainable over long periods than the management regimes that replaced them. Restoring ecosystems may require restoring the communities and practices that maintained them.