It makes poor sense because landowners are often selfish, and choose use cases with their property that maximize personal benefit and if there is a collective b

It makes poor sense because landowners are often selfish, and choose use cases with their property that maximize personal benefit and if there is a collective benefit to these decisions it is a happy accident. I'm including local species into the collective in this case. Often a landowner will put up barriers (e.g. a fence around a sprawling ranch or a beltway of roads around a suburban development) for species or will introduce invasive species or otherwise lower the biodiversity of a place through disruptive development.