The report stresses that the information necessary to make these types of determinations is not available and that research on ecological thresholds is a high priority. Vermont had some success in characterizing risk using data on deer wintering habitat. Critical habitat needs were also available for black bear, but the Vermont report points out that for most wildlife species, little is understood about critical habitat requirements. A Method to the Madness Project participants agree that terrestrial habitat alteration is a bad thing. There are at least two good reasons.
Projects clearly demonstrate the importance of natural ecosystems to human quality of life.
The potential for loss of recreation opportunities because of decreases in natural areas threaten significant economic impacts as well. Recognizing that the benefits of habitat-altering activities also flow to humans, there is still a perception that these activities tend to benefit the few, not the many. These and other quality of life impacts may well be the driving factor for high integrated rankings of this issue, but this doesn't explain the high rankings generated within the ecosystems work groups. In each of the technical reports reviewed, indicators and trends were used to paint a picture of the problem. Intuitively, the issue lends itself more to an evaluation of actual changes in acres and species, than to a characterization of the risk of certain stressors creating certain ecosystem effects.