>>2043751sure but that in no way is a way to define wilderness.
and just excluding bits of europe so your statements works is pretty silly.
sure scotland has some large tracts of land, but they aren't wildreness by any definition, and they aren't as large as other wilder areas of western europe.
here is one definition of wilderness. bare in mind I'm sure there a number of different definitions, but I feel safe assuming they won't stray too far from this:
>Wilderness>Natural processes govern Wilderness meeting the European Wilderness Quality Standard and Audit System “Gold- or Platinum Standard”. They are composed of native habitats and species, and large enough for the effective ecological functioning of natural processes. They are unmodified or only slightly modified and without intrusive or extractive human activity, settlements, infrastructure or visual disturbance.>Wild Area>Wilderness meeting the European Wilderness Quality Standard and Audit System “Bronze- or Silver Standard” are Wild Areas that have a high level of predominance of natural processes and natural habitat. They tend to be individually smaller and more fragmented than the “Gold- or Platinum Standard” Wilderness areas, although they often cover extensive tracts. The condition of their natural habitat, processes and relevant species is however often partially or substantially modified by past human activities such as livestock herding, hunting, fishing, and collecting berries and mushrooms.So using the above, you could probably start to call some areas of the UK 'wild areas'. I'd be interested in seeing the figures you are basing your claim on.
