It seems that one of the road blocks preventing increased dialogue between environmentalists and preservationists is the disparity between the quantitative and qualitative metrics the two groups, respectively, tend towards. These sometimes incompatible means by which the two movements measure their work are likely derived from their respectively scientific and art-historical origins. Because of this, these two groups seems to see a mixing of their metrics with those of the other side as a dilution: qualitative analysis lends rigor and scientific legitimacy, but at the cost of simplification; while quantitative lends depth and nuance at the cost of subjectivity. How can we begin to further bridge these gaps between the two movements, and promote a more compromising means of analysis? Find ways of emphasizing the strengths of the different means of analysis rather than their weaknesses?