Ecological connectivity is defined by the United Nations Convention on Migratory Species to be “[t]he unimpeded movement of species and the flow of natural processes that sustain life on Earth.” To conserve these vital links within and across ecosystems and political boundaries, scientists, policymakers, and practitioners around the world are increasing and combining their efforts to provide consistent and focused solutions. The most recent Protected Planet Report reveals that 7.84% of terrestrial protected areas are connected to each other. This remains far short of the stated target of connecting the over 17% of the planet that is now officially protected in one way or another. Much more effort is also required to maintain, enhance, and restore ecological connectivity across the matrix of human uses outside of such areas. The importance of conserving ecological connectivity to protect biodiversity, increase resilience to climate change, and provide the host of other benefits that humans receive from nature is clear and actionable as science and policy align to support the livelihoods of local communities while contributing to global environmental conservation goals.

The theory and practice of connectivity conservation have matured, and we are now at the point where intentional, landscape-scale ecological networks are poised to play an indispensable role in the drive to protect and conserve at least 30% of the Earth’s lands and waters by 2030. Clearly, achieving the “30x30” goal is an urgent matter as a big step toward what nature needs. The stark conclusions of the latest IPCC report leave no doubt that the 2020s will be a decisive decade for the planet, and there is broad scientific agreement that the biodiversity and climate change emergencies must be met in tandem. For conservationists, this means scaling up both our thinking and our ambitions. While formal protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs; also referred to as “conserved areas”) form the bedrock of conservation, equally important are the connections between and among these areas. The featured theme papers in this issue of Parks Stewardship Forum explain recent advances in connectivity conservation, spelling out what has to happen to hit the 30x30 target, exploring how science and policy are aligning to support the livelihoods of local communities and human rights while contributing to global environmental conservation goals, and providing concrete examples of where and how landscape-scale conservation can be applied to meet the challenges of our time.

The issue of connectivity in roaded landscapes is a controversial one. Conservationists argue for significant expenditures on wildlife-friendly highway designs, while opponents fight against such spending. A recent study evaluating wildlife use of underpasses in the Adirondack region of New York ran headlong into this controversy, inadvertently fueling a debate about the general efficacy of wildlife underpasses through misleading coverage of research results in the popular press. This poster will detail the road traveled by this project: from conception through implementation, to the publicizing of results and the subsequent media fallout, and will conclude with the steps taken to clarify the study conclusions and lessons learned about publicizing science that is of public and political interest. Because the proposed construction of the “Rooftop Highway” between Interstates 81 and 87 could effectively complete the isolation of the 24,000km2 Adirondack Park, measures to mitigate negative impacts on wildlife are a priority in the region. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the New York State Museum (NYSM) recently partnered on a small research project investigating the extent to which underpasses and culverts constructed under a nearby Adirondack highway (I-87) were utilized by wildlife. Although these structures were not explicitly designed for wildlife, they might still function as animal passageways. Interviews with NY DOT and other agency personnel strongly encouraged implementation of a study of this nature to help inform the design of new wildlife crossings. During a six-week period in spring 2002, we monitored 19 culverts and underpasses of various types along a 141-km stretch of I-87 using camera traps and supplemental footprint tracking. The results of this study, published in spring 2003 in the Adirondack Journal of Environmental Studies, made it clear that culverts along I-87 benefited humans, but were rarely utilized by wildlife, pointing to the low conservation value of unplanned culverts for large Adirondack wildlife. A secondary message was that wildlife passages under future roads and highways should be designed to curb human use of such passages. A draft press release by the authors accurately summarizing the study results was unintentionally distorted in institutional press releases from WCS and NYSM media offices. Local newspapers that picked up the story generally interviewed the authors and offered accurate coverage that focused on the costs and benefits of the proposed “Rooftop Highway.” This perspective was lost, however, in small pieces printed in the Washington Post and the New York Times. These stories distorted the study’s findings that almost no animals used the small I-87 culverts, by incorrectly claiming that wildlife underpasses universally do not work for wildlife. The lack of interviews for these national stories further deprived the authors of an opportunity to clarify this point. While the full impact of the Washington Post article is difficult to judge, it has apparently been cited by some officials and decision-makers as evidence against the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses. This misrepresentation of our results was a blow to all those working to improve connectivity in roaded landscapes, including the authors. We describe the steps taken by the scientists and institutions involved in this study to move constructively forward from this point. We also draw attention to the political climate surrounding this particular issue and a large volume of email exchanges, both of which served to greatly magnify the impact of this relatively minor study.