In this paper, we aim to shed light on the geographies that led both to the selection of Lodge Hill for the construction of a large-scale housing development and to the subsequent attempt to use biodiversity offsetting to compensate for its environmental impacts. We draw on extensive fieldwork from 2012 to 2016, and diverge from previous studies on offsetting by focusing less on issues related to metrics and governance and shifting our analytic attention to the economic and urban geographies surrounding the Lodge Hill case. We argue that this approach can offer not only an empirically grounded account of why offsetting is being selected to address the impacts of specific urban development projects, but also an in-depth understanding of the factors that determine offsetting’s actual implementation on the ground. Viewing the Lodge Hill case through the frame of urbanization allows us to better grasp the how, why and when particular alliances of actors contest and/or support the implementation of biodiversity offsetting. Our analytical lens also helps exposing the fragility of neoliberal natures and the roles inter-capitalist competition and species biology and ecology can play on the success or failure of neoliberal policies.
AdamsWMHodgeISandbrookL (2014)
New spaces for nature: The re-territorialisation of biodiversity conservation under neoliberalism in the UK.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers39: 574–588.
2.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG (2009)
Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway.Environment and Planning A41: 617–633.
3.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG (2013)
The evolution and trajectories of neoliberal spatial governance: “Neoliberal” episodes in planning.Planning Practice and Research28: 6–26.
4.
AngeloHWachsmuthD (2015)
Urbanizing urban political ecology: A critique of methodological cityism.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research39(1): 16–27.
5.
ApostolopoulouE. Beyond post-politics: offsetting, depoliticization and contestation in a community struggle against executive housing. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, in press.
6.
ApostolopoulouEAdamsWM (2015)
Neoliberal capitalism and conservation in the post-crisis era: The dialectics of ‘green’ and ‘un-green’ grabbing in Greece and the UK.Antipode47: 15–35.
7.
ApostolopoulouEAdamsWM (2017)
Biodiversity offsetting and conservation: Reframing nature to save it.Oryx51: 23–31.
8.
ApostolopoulouEAdamsWM (2019)
Cutting nature to fit: Urbanization, neoliberalism and biodiversity offsetting in England.Geoforum98: 214–225.
9.
ApostolopoulouEBormpoudakisDPaloniemiR, et al. (2014)
Governance rescaling and the neoliberalization of nature: The case of biodiversity conservation in four EU countries.International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology21: 481–494.
10.
ApostolopoulouEGrecoEAdamsWM (2018)
Biodiversity offsetting and the production of ‘equivalent natures’: A Marxist critique.ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies17(3): 861–892.
11.
ApostolopoulouEPantisJD (2010)
Development plans versus conservation: Explanation of emergent conflicts and state political handling.Environment and Planning A42: 982–1000.
12.
ArboledaM (2016)
Spaces of extraction, metropolitan explosions: Planetary urbanization and the commodity boom in Latin America.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research40: 96–112.
BidaudCSchreckenbergKRabeharisonM, et al. (2017)
The sweet and the bitter: Intertwined positive and negative social impacts of a biodiversity offset.Conservation and Society15: 1–13.
15.
BrackingS, FredriksenA, SullivanS and WoodhouseP (2018) Valuing development, environment and conservation: creating values that matter.
Abingdon:
Routledge.
16.
BrennerN (2013)
Theses on urbanisation.Public Culture25: 85–114.
DempseyJRobertsonM (2012)
Ecosystem services: Tensions, impurities, and points of engagement within neoliberalism.Progress in Human Geography36: 758–779.
29.
Department of Environment (1994) South East Regional Planning Guidance.
London:
HMSO.
30.
Department of Environment (1995) The Thames Gateway Planning Framework (RPG9A).
London:
HMSO.
Environment Bank (2012) Biodiversity Offsetting to Compensate for Nightingale Habitat Loss at Lodge Hill, Kent.
Ripon:
Environment Bank Ltd.
33.
FeatherstoneD (2005)
Towards the relational construction of militant particularisms: Or why the geographies of past struggles matter for resistance to neoliberal globalisation.Antipode37(2): 250–271.
34.
FeatherstoneD (2013) “Gramsci in action”. Space, politics, and the making of solidarities. In: EkersMHartGKipferS, et al. (eds) Gramsci: Space, Nature, Politics.
Chichester:
Wiley, pp. 65–82.
35.
GandyM (2013)
Marginalia: Aesthetics, ecology, and urban wastelands.Annals of the Association of American Geographers103: 1301–1316.
GibbonsPMacintoshAConstableAL, et al. (2018)
Outcomes from 10 years of biodiversity offsetting.Global Change Biology24: 643–654.
38.
GibbsDWhileAJonasAE (2007)
Governing nature conservation: The European Union Habitats Directive and conflict around estuary management.Environment and Planning A39: 339–358.
39.
GramsciA (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited by Nowell-Smith G and Hoare Q.
London:
International Publishers.
40.
HallSMasseyDRustinM (2013)
After neoliberalism: Analysing the present.Soundings53(53): 8–22.
41.
HannisMSullivanS (2012) Offsetting Nature? Habitat Banking and Biodiversity Offsets in the English Land Use Planning System.
Dorset:
Green House.
42.
HarveyD (1989) The Condition of Post-modernity: An Inquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change.
Oxford:
Blackwell.
43.
HarveyD (2000) Spaces of Hope.
Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
44.
HarveyD (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
HarveyD (2006) Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development.
London and New York:
Verso.
46.
HarveyD (2012) Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution.
London and New York:
Verso.
47.
HewsonCMFullerRJ (2012) Factors Potentially Affecting the Viability and Success of Biodiversity Offsetting to Compensate for Nightingale Habitat Loss.
Thetford:
BTO.
48.
HeynenNMcCarthyJPrudhamS, et al. (2007) Neoliberal Environments: False Promises and Unnatural Consequences.
London:
Routledge.
JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee) (2003) Habitats translocation policy for Britain. The Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage (Available upon request by the authors).
51.
JohnPTickelAMussonS (2005)
Governing the mega-region: Governance and networks across London and the South East of England.New Political Economy11: 91–106.
52.
KatzC (2001)
On the grounds of globalization: A topography for feminist political engagement.Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society26: 1213–1234.
53.
LefebvreH (1970) La Révolution Urbaine.
Vol. 216.
Paris:
Gallimard.
54.
LefebvreH (1991) The Production of Space.
Oxford:
Blackwell.
55.
LeitnerHPeckJSheppardES (2007) Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban Frontiers.
New York and London:
Guilford Press.
56.
LlewellynDTymR (1993) East Thames Corridor: A Study of Development Capacity and Potential Prepared for the Department of Environment.
London:
HMSO.
57.
LockhartA (2015)
Developing an offsetting programme: Tensions, dilemmas and difficulties in biodiversity market-making in England.Environmental Conservation42: 335–344.
58.
LockhartAReaC (2019) Why there and then, not here and now? Ecological offsetting in California and England, and the sharpening contradictions of neoliberal natures. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 2: 665–693.
59.
LorimerJ (2007)
Nonhuman charisma.Environment and Planning D: Society and Space25: 911–932.
Medway Council (2018) Medway Local Plan Development Strategy.
London:
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd.
63.
NüssliRSchmidC (2016)
Beyond the urban–suburban divide: Urbanization and the production of the urban in Zurich North.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research40: 679–701.
64.
OPDM (2003) Creating Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future.
London:
HMSO.
65.
OPDM (2004) Creating Sustainable Communities: Greening the Gateway.
London:
HMSO.
66.
ParkerDM (1995) Habitat Creation – A Critical Guide. English Nature Research Report No. 21.
Peterborough:
English Nature.
67.
PeakeL (2016)
On feminism and feminist allies in knowledge production in urban geography.Urban Geography37: 830–838.
68.
PeckJTheodoreN (2010)
Mobilizing policy: Models, methods, and mutations.Geoforum41: 169–174.
69.
PeckJTheodoreNBrennerN (2012)
Neoliberalism resurgent? Market rule after the great recession.South Atlantic Quarterly111: 265–288.
RacoM (2005)
Sustainable development, rolled-out neoliberalism and sustainable communities.Antipode37: 324–347.
72.
ReaCM (2019)
Regulatory thickening and the politics of market-oriented environmental policy. Environmental Politics28: 1167–1191.
73.
Re:Common (2018) Offsetting for whom? In: EApostolopoulouJCortes-Vazquez (eds) The Right to Nature: Environmental Justice, Social Movements and Neoliberal Natures.
London:
Routledge-Earthscan, pp.200–209.
74.
RobertsonMM (2000)
No net loss: wetland restoration and the incomplete capitalization of nature.Antipode32: 463–493.
75.
RobertsonM (2012)
Measurement and alienation: making a world of ecosystem services.Transactions of the institute of British Geographers37: 386–401.
76.
SeagleC (2012)
Inverting the impacts: Mining, conservation and sustainability claims near the Rio Tinto/QMM ilmenite mine in Southeast Madagascar.Journal of Peasant Studies39: 447–477.
77.
ShawJSidawayJD (2011)
Making links: On (re) engaging with transport and transport geography.Progress in Human Geography35: 502–520.
78.
SmithN (2010) Uneven Development. 3rd ed.
London and New York:
Verso.
79.
SojaEKanaiM (2006) The urbanization of the world. In: BurdettRSudjicD (eds) The Endless City.
London:
Phaidon.
80.
SparkeM (2000)
“Chunnel visions”: Unpacking the anticipatory geographies of an Anglo-European Borderland.Journal of Borderland Studies15: 187–219.
81.
SullivanS (2013)
Banking nature? The spectacular financialisation of environmental conservation.Antipode45: 198–217.
82.
SullivanS and HannisM (2015)
Nets and frames, losses and gains: value struggles in engagements with biodiversity offsetting policy in England.Ecosystem Services15: 162–173.
83.
SwyngedouwE (2006) Metabolic urbanization: The making of the cyborg city. In: SwyngedouwEHeynenNKaikaM (eds) In the Nature of Cities: Urban Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism.
London:
Routledge, pp.36–55.
84.
TaherzadehOHowleyP (2018)
No net loss of what, for whom? Stakeholder perspectives to biodiversity offsetting in England.Environment, Development and Sustainability20: 1807–1830.
TurokI (2009)
Limits to the mega-city region: Conflicting local and regional needs.Regional Studies43: 845–862.
87.
WorthingtonTRHelliwellDR (1987)
Transference of semi-natural grassland and marshland onto newly created landfill.Biological Conservation41: 301–311.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
