The article actually advocates the protection of the most ecologically rich already roadless areas, not the destruction of roads. Roads in lots of these areas wouldn't necessarily be beneficial to humankind. It's just that in many of these areas there is insufficient protection of the habitats in them.
Obviously, there can be a smarter strategy for humans than the two extremes of no farming and killing everything that you seem to outline in your post.
And, most environment researchers (or academics of any type) are definitely not rich, especially if you take into account the atrocious salary for early career researchers who make less than bus drivers.