―Because the concept of wilderness has been primarily a cultural one, the scientific foundation for wilderness is still being established‖, argues Julie McGuiness in her article on the webpage for The (Australian) Wilderness Society entitled, ―What is Wilderness?‖ (1999). In ‗Wilderness and future conservation priorities in Australia‘, ecologists James E. Watson and colleagues define wilderness as: ―large areas that have experienced minimal habitat loss‖ (2009, p.1029). They acknowledge, in this definition, two things. The first is that there has been some debate ―over the appropriateness of the term ‗wilderness‘ in the conservation literature‖ (ibid). The second is that ―This definition means that many wilderness areas may have had a long history of human occupation, as is the case in Australia, and the term does not preclude (or ignore) human presence (Lesslie et al., 1988; Mackey et al., 1999; Woinarksi et al., 2007)‖ (ibid). What is a little unclear in this definition is what precisely is meant here by habitat loss. What of an environment, for example, that over millennia, has transformed from forest to desert? Even the richest rainforest must have experienced waves of succession of different biological populations and the habitats they depended upon over large enough time scales (see Gleason, 1939, Drury & Nisbet, 1972, and discussion in chapter Four). One of the papers Watson et al claim to be following in this definition of wilderness, co-authored by one of its own authors, Brendan G. Mackey, gives a different definition, but one in fact that might help explainwhat is meant here by ―habitat loss‖.
Mackey et al, in ‗Wilderness and its place in nature conservation in Australia‘ (1999), define wilderness in two ways, making a critical distinction between wilderness quality, and wilderness areas:
a) Wilderness quality is the extent to which any specified unit area is remote from and undisturbed by the impacts and influence of modern technological society.
b) Wilderness areas are places where wilderness quality is recognized and valued by society and are defined using arbitrary thresholds of remoteness, naturalness and total area. (ibid, p.182)
Watson et al are defining wilderness areas in terms of lack of habitat loss, but here, Mackey et al, who they claim to be following, are speaking in terms of being remote from and undisturbed by the impacts of modern technological society, and another quality they refer to (like American definitions) as ―naturalness‖. They place important caveats on each definition:
Wilderness quality can thus be defined as a function of levels of disturbance associated with modern technological society and, as such, does not deny the reality of Indigenous Australia. In contrast, wilderness areas can indeed be regarded as cultural constructs to the extent that threshold criteria are intrinsically value-based and their existence is fundamentally controlled by the contemporary demand for and supply of remote and natural places. (ibid)
The reference here to Indigenous Australia aligns this definition with that of Watson et al, in their admission that wilderness areas may have had a long human history which also refers to Indigenous Australia. This relates directly to the ―debate over the appropriateness of the term ‗wilderness‘ in the conservation literature‖ mentioned by Watson et al, who cite in relation to this Deborah Bird Rose (1996), who argues for a shift in the understanding of wilderness to reflect its human history from a Indigenous Australian perspective. According to McGuiness on the Wilderness Society webpage,
In Australia and the United States, wilderness has always been a cultural landscape -- over approximately 50 millennia indigenous people have lived in and altered most of the areas in Australia that that we call wilderness. Popular views of national parks and other natural areas as places without people or any human impact have begun to relax. Indeed many
contemporary conservation groups, including The Wilderness Society (TWS), share a recognition that wilderness in Australia is, by definition, traditional Aboriginal or Islander land. With regard to Aboriginal and Islander impacts, they discriminate between the impacts of indigenous people practising ecologically sustainable land management, and the very
different impacts of colonial and modern technological society. The crucial issue in the identification of wilderness is not whether an area has been modified by humans, but the extent and nature of the modification.
Given the high correlation between remaining wilderness areas and land which retains cultural importance for indigenous people, wilderness protection in Australia may not be properly achievable unless prior ownership and current Aboriginal and Islander aspirations are comprehensively addressed. TWS is working closely with a number of indigenous communities to meet our joint expectations of 'caring for country'.
(1999)
In contrasting the culturally constructed nature of wilderness areas with lack of disturbances associated with modern technological society signifying wilderness quality, and relating this to ―the reality of‖ Indigenous Australia, it is implied by Mackey et al that this disturbance itself and the freedom from it are also realities, rather than culturally relative constructs. In terms of the reality of Indigenous Australia referred to, this can only be a reality in terms of, firstly, history, and secondly, the degree to which contemporary Indigenous Australians
continue to not participate in the environmentally disturbing behaviour of modern technological society, of which they are also a part. But to determine when Indigenous Australians (or any human beings for that matter) are or are not participating in the disturbing activities associated with this contemporary industrial form of society, the more information we have on how this might be quantified, the better. There is also the difficulty of whether, once part and therefore to some degree dependent on the industrial activity of such a society (and so part of the overall population pressure that drives this activity), whether it is even possible not to contribute in at least some way to the environmentally disturbing behaviours of such a society. Once a self-aware, environmentally aware member of such a society, it is difficult not to see one‘s own contribution and complicity.