As in: build smaller, denser cities and leave more land wild outside.

Many people seem to view their large lot with some landscaping that's friendly to a few species that do well in the wildland/urban interface as "environmentalism", without considering the systemic effects of what that would look like if everyone were to live that way, or what its costs are in terms of being car-centric.

Of course the animals a human found and took to an animal hospital were likely to have been there because of humans.

People don’t go deep into the wilderness to find injured animals, and those that do tend to leave them there.

This is some extreme sort of selection bias that needs a different name.

Like how many raccoons are eaten by coyotes?

There is a serious philosophical problem with the concept of “negative impact” here. And the core concept of the research.