That's true, but area is not the only important metric. It only takes a thin sliver of highway cutting through a forest to segment an habitat, break migration paths, and strongly affect ecosystems.

The article is mainly about green roofs, but wildlife bridges would perhaps be an even more important example of "building for wildlife".

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/wildlife-...

Driving along the freeways through northern Ontario (400) and northern British Columbia (1 through Banff), I was amazed to see how many wildlife bridges there actually are. The ones in BC are plainly visible because they go over the road, but the ones in Ontario mostly go under the road in the form of large tunnels with fence funnels on either end, and most people would probably never notice them if they weren't paying attention.

I even saw a few under the highway in the prairies in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I think those were mostly for moving livestock across the highway though.

--This-- is the point.

Animals need corridors to move between populations

Green roofs would improve the temperature of our homes making to spend less in energy. We should build more, just by our own interest. They are nicer to see than just a roof also.

1% is used for habitation and other city based stuff.

50% of habitable land is used for agriculture.

uninhabitable land includes tundra, desert, exposed rock, mountains etc. That's ~29% of all land.

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use

sure, but some of the largest and most important ecosystems which contribute a lot to the overall stability of the earth are being completely obliterated. I remember reading that the Amazon is now a net carbon dioxide producer due to over-utilisation of natural resources. surely that can't be good, right?