Land that has no buildings on it is not necessarily in a natural state… there are grades to “undeveloped land” with some having much more ecological value than others. If I look at the side of the road by the local interstate yes there is technically a “forest” but it’s mostly like loblolly pine plantation with the trees densely packed to each other to maximize the amount that can be cut and invasive privet growing in what little space remains between them. All those leaves trunks and stems in close proximity choke out the sun reaching the ground (preventing forbs, legumes and grasses that need that sun from growing and making food for the rest of the foodchain) and puts impassable woody thickets between the pine trunks that block most anything from moving though the area unless they can fly or climb above it.

Looks wild enough to the uninformed but ecologically useless to the majority of animals adapted to what was once open and parklike easily navigable longleaf pine savanna with insanely diverse groundcover supporting many animal diets and providing shelter.

There’s a lot of developed forests.

Undeveloped = not yet pillaged and exploited for profit.

What if it’s an empty residential lot fenced in, in a high cost of living city, where property prices keep increasing and these owners rather sit on the land because it will make them more money than developing it?

Uncivilized land.

It needs civility.