It also shows two things things I think most ecologists are well aware of but which are harde to explain to laypeople, under quantity having a quality of its own only going so far when you actually need quality:

1. having 1000 sq km of total reserves but highly fragmented over the territory is better than nothing but almost certainly worse than having only 500 at a single location, because in the fragmented version you'll basically have lots of copies of "edge" ecological niches, but will be missing the "deeper" niches entirely

2. areas being "undeveloped" is not sufficient, and possibly misleading, because it's really the human activity which is disruptive to wildlife, if you decide to have wildlife refuge you need complete removal of humans for it to truly be effective