Ecological connectivity needs to be maintained within and between habitats in terrestrial and aquatic systems to allow for dispersal, migration, and re-colonization, prevent inbreeding, and maintain other ecological processes. Environmental assessment (EA) has been criticized for its poor consideration of biodiversity for many years, and ecological connectivity has often been neglected. While many studies on connectivity have been published in recent years, studies that explicitly link connectivity to EA practice are rare. We synthesize the main insights of a special issue published in Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal (IAPA) to address this problem. Specifically, we (1) highlight the need for studies that link EA and connectivity; (2) learn about current challenges and compile approaches for improving the consideration of connectivity in EA; and (3) foster interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral work that evaluates and advances current practices of connectivity consideration. The special issue includes 9 papers from 6 countries (Brazil, Canada, France, UK, Spain, and Sweden), including a global survey (134 participants) about current practices and common issues regarding the treatment of connectivity in EA. Over 72% of respondents stated that connectivity should always be considered. However, it is often considered too late in the EA process, at a scale of analysis often unsuitable for capturing landscape-scale effects, and relies on overly simplistic metrics or qualitative approaches. We identify 6 critical challenges (e.g., poor consideration of landscape-scale impacts on connectivity, lack of meaningful cumulative effects assessments (CEAs)), 6 opportunities (e.g., use of available quantitative methods), and 6 systemic changes to EA that are needed to ensure an adequate consideration of connectivity. For instance, the consideration of connectivity in EA is highly susceptible to the shifting baseline syndrome or ‘fallacy of stressed systems’. Connectivity consideration will remain ineffective in the future if baselines are shifted time and again, resulting in the destruction of the remaining potential for recovery, a false sense of success of mitigation measures, deceptive promises of insignificant residual effects, and in the illusion of a future ‘eco-perfect’ development. To improve the treatment of connectivity in EA, we propose a 4-point strategy that entails (1) the creation of guidance, (2) the inclusion of connectivity in legislation and regulation along with a delineation of the roles and responsibilities of participants in the EA process, (3) the development of meaningful CEAs at landscape-level scales, and (4) the integration of connectivity assessment in national and subnational biodiversity and land-use planning processes. - Reference: Special Issue on Ecological Connectivity, part 1. Guest Editors: Torres A, Patterson C, Jaeger JAG. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 40(6): 451-530.