Conservation efforts have traditionally centered on preserving “pristine” ecosystems — areas presumed to be untouched by human activity. These ecosystems, such as primary rainforests, remote coral reefs, and alpine tundra, are highly valued for their rich biodiversity, ecological integrity, and function as baselines for scientific research. However, as human influence now extends across virtually every ecosystem on Earth, the question arises: Should conservationists continue focusing solely on pristine ecosystems, or adopt a broader, more inclusive approach?
This essay was posed by one of my colleagues who had studied ecology at Cambridge. She argues that while the protection of pristine ecosystems remains vital, conservation must extend beyond them. A singular focus on pristine landscapes is increasingly unfeasible and ethically problematic. Conservation must also include degraded, novel, and human-influenced landscapes — especially given their ecological potential, socio-cultural importance, and role in global sustainability. Case studies from Costa Rica, Rwanda, Singapore, and Canada illustrate the necessity and practicality of this inclusive approach.
1. The Value of Pristine Ecosystems
Pristine ecosystems serve as biodiversity reservoirs, regulate the climate, and provide essential ecosystem services. Tropical rainforests, Arctic tundras, and untouched wetlands contain complex ecological networks and species found nowhere else.
Case Study: Yasuni National Park, Ecuador
Yasuni, located in the Ecuadorian Amazon, is considered one of the most biologically diverse places on Earth. It is home to over 2,000 tree species and hundreds of mammals, reptiles, and birds (Bass et al., 2010). Protecting areas like Yasuni is crucial for conserving irreplaceable genetic resources, regulating climate through carbon storage, and preserving cultural heritage — as it overlaps with the territory of the Waorani Indigenous people.
Efforts to preserve such landscapes are essential to slowing global biodiversity loss and maintaining ecological stability. They also offer baseline conditions for scientific research, helping scientists understand what healthy ecosystems look like and how human influence alters them.
2. The Limitations of a Pristine-Only Focus
Despite their importance, pristine ecosystems represent only a small and declining fraction of the Earth’s surface. A conservation model that focuses exclusively on them risks leaving vast, biodiverse, and ecologically valuable human-modified landscapes unprotected.
A. Most Landscapes Are No Longer Pristine
Today, only an estimated 3% of the planet’s land area can be considered ecologically intact — meaning they retain their full complement of species and ecological processes (Plumptre et al., 2021). Human activities such as agriculture, urbanization, and industry have altered the vast majority of ecosystems. Waiting to conserve only “perfect” ecosystems ignores the reality of the Anthropocene, where humans are embedded within nearly every ecological process.
3. The Role of Human-Altered Landscapes in Conservation
Rather than being conservation dead zones, human-altered landscapes can support considerable biodiversity and offer vital ecosystem services.
Case Study: Costa Rica’s Biodiversity Corridor
Costa Rica is a global model for integrating biodiversity conservation with sustainable land use. Only 25% of the country is under formal protection, but it has implemented biological corridors that connect national parks through agricultural and community lands (Janzen, 2004). For example, the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor allows jaguars and other wide-ranging species to traverse fragmented habitats safely.
Agroforestry practices on farms — such as shaded coffee plantations — provide habitat for birds, pollinators, and mammals, demonstrating that biodiversity and productive land use can coexist. Costa Rica’s approach has reversed deforestation trends and significantly increased forest cover (Fagan et al., 2013).
4. Restoration and the Promise of Novel Ecosystems
Restoration ecology is a crucial pillar of modern conservation. It involves reviving degraded lands to recover biodiversity, improve ecosystem services, and mitigate climate impacts.
Case Study: Rwanda’s Gishwati–Mukura Forest Landscape
In Rwanda, the Gishwati–Mukura Forest was heavily degraded by agriculture and mining during decades of conflict and displacement. Recognizing its importance, the government established the Gishwati–Mukura National Park in 2015. Through reforestation, erosion control, and sustainable farming programs, the landscape is recovering biodiversity — including chimpanzees and golden monkeys — and supporting local livelihoods (Turner et al., 2020).
This example illustrates that degraded lands, even after severe human impact, can regain ecological function and biodiversity through active restoration.
5. Inclusive Conservation and Indigenous Stewardship
A pristine-only approach often excludes human communities and perpetuates conservation injustices. Many “wilderness” areas are, in fact, ancestral lands of Indigenous peoples who have stewarded biodiversity for generations.
Case Study: Great Bear Rainforest, Canada
The Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia — one of the world’s largest intact temperate rainforests — is co-managed by Indigenous First Nations and the provincial government. Through traditional knowledge and community-based governance, the area is sustainably managed for conservation, culture, and economy (Price et al., 2009). This inclusive model illustrates that people and biodiversity can thrive together.
6. Urban Conservation and Novel Ecosystems
Urban areas, often dismissed in conservation planning, can support biodiversity and foster human-nature connection.
Case Study: Singapore’s Urban Biodiversity Strategy
Singapore, one of the world’s most densely populated cities, has pioneered urban biodiversity through its City in a Garden strategy. It integrates nature into dense urban environments through vertical gardens, wetland parks, and green corridors (Tan et al., 2013). The Park Connector Network links natural reserves and city parks, allowing species such as smooth-coated otters to recolonize urban areas.
Urban biodiversity also supports human health, well-being, and public engagement with conservation — crucial in an increasingly urban world.
7. Toward a Landscape Approach
Conservationists are increasingly adopting a landscape approach, which integrates protected areas, agricultural land, urban zones, and community spaces into cohesive ecological and social strategies (Sayer et al., 2013).
This approach promotes:
-
Ecological connectivity to help species migrate and adapt;
-
Social equity, by involving Indigenous and local communities;
-
Climate resilience, through integrated land-use systems.
Recognizing biodiversity across a spectrum — not just in remote reserves — allows for more flexible, scalable, and realistic conservation strategies.
Conclusion
The notion that conservation should focus solely on pristine ecosystems is increasingly outdated. While these areas are vital for biodiversity, climate regulation, and research, they are rare and declining. More importantly, they are not the only ecosystems that matter.
As shown by case studies in Costa Rica, Rwanda, Singapore, and Canada, degraded and human-modified environments can support rich biodiversity, provide critical ecosystem services, and empower communities. Ignoring these landscapes would limit the reach and relevance of conservation in the Anthropocene.
The future of conservation lies in embracing an inclusive, landscape-level approach that recognizes the value of nature in all its forms — from rainforests to farmlands, and from Indigenous territories to urban parks. In doing so, we not only protect biodiversity but also create a more just, resilient, and sustainable world.
References
Baccini, A., Walker, W., Carvalho, L., Farina, M., Sulla-Menashe, D., & Houghton, R. A. (2017). Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science, 358(6360), 230–234. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5962
Bass, M. S., Finer, M., Jenkins, C. N., Kreft, H., Cisneros-Heredia, D. F., McCracken, S. F., … & Larsen, T. H. (2010). Global conservation significance of Ecuador’s Yasuní National Park. PLoS ONE, 5(1), e8767. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008767
Fagan, M. E., DeFries, R. S., Sesnie, S. E., Rosa, M., & Uribe, F. A. (2013). Land cover dynamics following a deforestation ban in northern Costa Rica. Environmental Research Letters, 8(3), 034017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034017
Janzen, D. H. (2004). Tropical dry forest: Area de Conservación Guanacaste, northwestern Costa Rica. In N. Myers & R. Mittermeier (Eds.), Hotspots revisited: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions (pp. 94–99). CEMEX.
Plumptre, A. J., Baisero, D., Belote, R. T., Venter, O., Halpern, B. S., Linke, S., … & Watson, J. E. M. (2021). Where might we find ecologically intact communities? Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 4, 626635. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.626635
Price, K., Roburn, A., & MacKinnon, A. (2009). Ecosystem-based management in the Great Bear Rainforest. Forest Ecology and Management, 258(4), 495–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.10.010
Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J.-L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., … & Buck, L. E. (2013). Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(21), 8349–8356. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210595110
Tan, P. Y., Wang, J., & Sia, A. (2013). Perspectives on five decades of the urban greening of Singapore. Cities, 32, 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.02.006
Turner, W. R., Nakamura, T., & Dinetti, M. (2020). Gishwati-Mukura: Rwanda’s new National Park blends biodiversity conservation and community development. World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/04/gishwati-mukura-rwanda-conservation
West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35, 251–277. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308
Leave a Reply