Context <p>Ecological networks (i.e. sets of connected natural habitats) emerged in the 1980s and have been implemented worldwide. They have been developed as a land-use planning tool that enables to ensure both habitat amount and landscape connectivity in response to ground based physical anthropogenic drivers (e.g. forest cuttings, roads, dams).</p> <p><i>Objective</i>&#xa0;We wanted to highlight some gaps in this conception of habitat loss and fragmentation that led to potential lacks in the current methods and approaches to design and manage ecological networks, with a view to suggest a way of improving the situation for a more comprehensive consideration of biodiversity.</p> Methods <p>We compared new scientific knowledge about habitat loss and fragmentation with a critical assessment of feedback from ecological networks, in order to highlight bottlenecks. On this basis we formulated proposals for a new framework and discussed the operational implications for designing and managing broader ecological networks.</p> Results <p>Airscape or soils—key compartments for activities and movements of species—appear to be rarely considered in ecological networks, as well as sensory pollutants—i.e. artificial light at night, man-induced sounds and odors—while they have been demonstrated to disturb nightscapes, soundscapes and odorscapes.</p> Conclusion <p>We invite landscape designers and decision-makers to transition to multidimensional ecological networks, developing specific infrastructure against habitat loss and fragmentation, in particular an aerial infrastructure for flying species, a brown infrastructure for soil wildlife, a dark infrastructure for darkness at night, a noise-free infrastructure and an olfactory infrastructure to deal with anthropogenic odors.</p>