“We must see nature as a process within which man exists, splendidly equipped to become the manager of the biosphere” – IL McHarg

  The concept of a sliding or shifting baseline was first postulated by the Scot, Ian L. McHarg (1920 – 2001), a Professor and Chairman of Landscape and Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania, and arguably the most important environmental planner and landscape architect of the 20th century.

  He published his manifesto “Design with Nature’ in 1969, in which drawing on his ecological wisdom, he put forward that the way to best modify and occupy earth, is when it is planned and designed with careful regard to both the ecology and character of the landscape. Ian McHarg recognized the need for us to understand the medium we inhabit as well as how we shape it, and it us.  

  The concept of a “shifting baseline” has become increasingly relevant in discussions about environmental degradation. It refers to the gradual acceptance of a deteriorating environmental state as the new “normal.”

  The concept of shifting baselines was brought into the public light in 1995 by fisheries scientist Daniel Pauly. He observed that fisheries scientists often used inaccurate “baseline” population sizes when assessing the health of fish stocks. These baselines were frequently set at the point when scientists began their careers, rather than at the original, untouched state of the fishery.

  As a result, decades of decline in fish populations were often overlooked. What was once considered a thriving ecosystem might have been severely depleted, but the current state was perceived as normal because it was the only reference point available. This is a classic example of the phenomenon, known as shifting baselines, and how they can mask significant changes in ecosystems over time.

  Anecdotal evidence of historical population levels can be unreliable, leading to mismanagement of the environment. When we lose sight of what was once considered “natural,” we become less sensitive to environmental changes and more likely to tolerate negative impacts. Shifting baselines can have profound consequences for both ecosystems and human well-being. 

  The psychological factors

  One of the primary reasons for baseline shift is the human tendency to adapt to changing circumstances. When we are exposed to a gradual decline in environmental quality, our brains gradually adjust to the new conditions, making it more difficult to perceive the negative changes. This phenomenon, known as “habituation,” can lead to a sense of complacency and a diminished awareness of environmental problems.

  On an individual level, shifting baselines have increased our tolerance to environmental degradation, including wildlife population decline, increased pollution and loss of natural habitats. This is because people will evaluate the severity of environmental degradation by referencing it back to their own cognitive baseline.

  Additionally, the “normalization of deviance” plays a significant role in baseline shift. This occurs when people become accustomed to seeing or experiencing negative behaviours or outcomes, leading them to accept these as normal or acceptable. In the context of environmental degradation, this can result in the acceptance of pollution, deforestation, and other harmful practices as inevitable consequences of human progress and in some case, animal re-population and/or animal over population.

  The economic and social factors

  Economic factors also contribute to a shifting baseline. The pursuit of economic growth often leads to environmental degradation, as industries prioritize short-term profits over long-term sustainability. When economic development is seen as a priority, environmental concerns may be relegated to a secondary position. This can create a situation where people are willing to tolerate environmental damage in exchange for economic benefits.

  Social factors can also influence a shifting baseline. Cultural norms and values can shape our perceptions of the environment and our willingness to accept environmental degradation. For example, in societies that prioritize individual achievement and material wealth, environmental concerns may be seen as less important than personal gain. Additionally, the lack of public awareness and education about environmental issues can contribute to a shift in baseline reference, as people may be unaware of the consequences of their actions or the importance of environmental protection.

  The consequences

  The consequences of shifting baselines can be far-reaching. As we become accustomed to a degraded environment, we may lose our ability to appreciate its value and to recognize the negative impacts of environmental change. This can lead to a loss of biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, and public health problems.

  Furthermore, a shifting baseline can make it more difficult to address environmental challenges. If we accept a certain level of environmental degradation as the norm, it becomes more challenging to mobilize public support for conservation efforts or to implement policies that aim to protect the environment. This can perpetuate a cycle of environmental decline and limit our ability to create a sustainable future.

  Addressing shifting baselines

  To combat shifting baselines, it is essential to raise awareness about environmental issues and to promote a culture of environmental stewardship. Education and public outreach can help people understand the importance of environmental protection and the consequences of environmental degradation. Additionally, it is crucial to develop policies and regulations that prioritize environmental sustainability and hold individuals and corporations accountable for their actions.

  By challenging the status quo and working towards a more sustainable future, we can prevent or reverse the shift in baseline reference and protect our planet for generations to come.