Supporting wildlife movement amid the rise of border infrastructure

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher
Full text 2,509 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 3 of this Preprint. You must log in to post a comment. There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article. This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 3 of this Preprint. Add a Comment You must log in to post a comment. Comments There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article. Transboundary areas of conservation importance affected by border infrastructure and militarization urgently need connectivity conservation solutions. Where human conflicts are ongoing and peace initiatives may be unviable, smaller-scale approaches can still be implemented. We propose a multi-faceted approach to support animal movement and minimize impacts of multiple border barriers on medium to large-sized mammals in Białowieża Forest, a UNESCO World Heritage Site shared by Belarus and Poland. These “wildlife border passages” require maximizing or modifying existing infrastructure or restoring known pathways as follows: 1) opening gates designed to facilitate wildlife movement between Poland and Belarus, also to release animals trapped between barriers; 2) creation of passages at barrier bottom to permit movement of medium-sized species including those highly threatened by border infrastructure such as Eurasian lynx; and 3) unfencing of riverine areas, which often serve as movement corridors for large mammals like moose. Joint monitoring of wildlife border passages to evaluate and improve their effectiveness will strengthen bilateral collaboration. Adopting less invasive security technologies, for example virtual fencing, can help realize such approaches at lower cost to the natural world. https://doi.org/10.32942/X25Q1S Biodiversity, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Environmental Law, Environmental Studies, Forest Management, Nature and Society Relations, Zoology For Review Only Supporting wildlife movement amid the rise of border infrastructure Journal: Conservation Science and Practice Manuscript ID Draft Wiley - Manuscript type: Perspective Search Terms: tr, border barriers, environmental peacebuilding, ecological connectivity, transboundary, conservation, border barriers, environmental peace-building, ecological connectivity, UNESCO Published: 2026-01-21 18:30 Last Updated: 2026-02-26 15:42 CC BY Attribution 4.0 International Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no financial or non-financial competing interests. Language: English

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00