Authors: Saltz, David;

The concept of ‘Naturalness’ in conservation remains polysemic. Some believe ecosystem naturalness is the extent of freedom from anthropogenic influence (autonomy), others contend that naturalness should be determined by structure (integrity), A pristine ecosystem is both autonomous and has 100% integrity. The problem begins when needing to decide how to treat an impacted ecosystem. The autonomy school advocates hands-off, the integrity school promotes benchmark-based restoration by active management. Alternatively, expected global changes suggest enhancement of ecosystem resilience should be prioritized. I argue that integrity, autonomy, and resilience are all morally valid. Their incompatibility can be tolerated if we recognize that: (a) full naturalness is an unattainable abstraction to strive for; (b) restoration processes are not an act of curation but rather a "contrary-to-duty” obligation; and (c) integrity, resilience, and autonomy are mid-level moral principles of applied ethics. Mid-level principles are ‘Prima facie’ and are used to construct a working protocol responsive both to the case details and high-level principles. The principles may conflict, and are prioritized based on existing conditions. Ecosystem conservation mid-level principles should include: (1) minimize anthropogenic footprint; (2) manage for integrity based on a reliable and feasible benchmark; (3) enhance future resilience to projected global change.