Abandonment, when it came, crept in from the outskirts. Homes at the edge of town were first to go, then the peripheral grocery stores. It moved inward, slow but inexorable. The petrol station closed, and creepers climbed the pumps, amassing on the roof until it buckled under the strain. The village of Tyurkmen, in central Bulgaria, was no exception. Once a thriving town of over 1,200 residents, it is now home to fewer than 200 people.
Dimitrinka Dimcheva, a 56-year-old post officer, still runs the local post office, two days a week, bringing in packages for the few remaining shops. The town square, where she stood, remembering the good old days, will soon be a memory, like so many others across Bulgaria.
The phenomenon is not unique to Bulgaria. The global population has been shifting, with more people moving to cities, leaving behind a trail of abandoned villages and towns. According to the UN, over 400 million hectares of land have been abandoned worldwide since the 1950s. In the 1980s, 30 million hectares of farmland were abandoned in the US alone.
But what happens to the land left behind? It’s a question that has drawn the attention of scientists, who are now studying the impact of human abandonment on the environment. Ecologist Gergana Daskalova, who grew up in the village, is leading a project to examine the transformation of these areas.
As she walked through the village, she pointed out the posters on the fences and gates, noting the dates of death and the names of those who had passed away. “It’s like a clock ticking, measuring the time since the people have left,” she said. “On a human level, that’s very sad. But that clock is also measuring the end of human impact and the onset of environmental change afterwards.”
Daskalova’s research aims to understand how nature adapts to human absence. She is studying 30 villages, collecting data on everything from tree growth to bird songs, to create a comprehensive picture of how the natural world responds to human departure.
Some scientists believe that humans can actually help the environment, by creating diverse and sustainable landscapes. They point to the success of traditional hay meadows, where humans have maintained a rich biodiversity. “People are still imagining [nature] as this kind of pristine place that’s going to be saved from people,” says environmental scientist Erle Ellis. “That is definitely a misunderstanding.”
The truth is that humans have been reshaping the natural world for thousands of years, and it’s not always a bad thing. “The essential role that people play in ecology is the critical thing, and it’s been ignored,” says Ellis. “The most biodiverse places left on Earth – this is almost universally true – have indigenous people in them. Why? Well, they conserve a lot of that biodiversity and actually produce it. They maintain that heterogeneous landscape.”
The debate surrounding human impact on the environment is complex, but one thing is clear: the world is undergoing a profound transformation. As more people move to cities, leaving behind abandoned villages and towns, the question remains: what happens to the land left behind? Will it be reclaimed by nature, or can we find a way to use it in a way that benefits both humans and the environment?
In Tyurkmen, Slavcho Stoyanov, a herder, is trying to find an answer. He is one of the few remaining residents who still graze his sheep in the fields, maintaining a patchwork landscape that is both a reminder of the past and a glimpse of the future. “What you can get is depopulation as a stepping stone to industrialization,” he says.
As the village continues to transform, the future of the land is uncertain. Will it be restored to its former state, or will it be transformed in ways both new and unexpected? The answer, much like the fate of Tyurkmen, lies in the balance.
