Indeed. This is why conservation of habitats (however small, or degraded) makes more sense than trying to restore already-destroyed areas.
That said: if I could pick an area to work on for myself, I'd go for a stretch of wasteland. Why? Because the before-after difference would be more stark (read: more satisfying). And heavily degraded lands are in muuuch bigger supply than little-degraded areas.
More important would be a general willingness of the locals to not interfere with restauration efforts.
> I like this article because it demonstrates that there is always fertile land and opportunities where people are not looking.
Stronger: "fertile" isn't strictly needed. Fertile soil can be built - if necessary, starting from 'scratch' (yes it does take time). Basically: grow stuff (anything is better than nothing), mulch (bio-waste is free), keep doing so, and whatever soil you started with, will improve over time.
As the soil improves, plants grow better & other life returns.