Skip to main content

Assessing the Impacts of Investment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Money in Rural Areas

Abstract

The propensity of investors and investment to impact, for good or bad, on local economies, environments and on communities will depend, to a large extent, on the transformations in land-use and economic activity that those investments bring, as well as the extent to which local assets are engaged in new, locally embedded activities. This chapter has four aims: first, to scope the sorts of impacts that are examined in the case studies; second, to review the ways in which different impacts might be conceived and measured; third, to outline the framework for assessing investment impacts adopted in this research; and fourth, to explain how the gathered data for this study were interpreted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63, 616–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, B., Wornell, R., & Youell, R. (2006). Re-conceptualising rural resources as countryside capita: The case of rural tourism. Journal of Rural Studies, 22, 117–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasparatos, A., Stromberg, P., & Takeuchi, K. (2011). Biofuels, ecosystem services and human wellbeing: Putting biofuels in the ecosystem services narrative. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 142, 111–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glasson, J., & Wood, G. (2009). Urban regeneration and impact assessment for social sustainability. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(4), 283–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchen, L., & Marsden, L. (2009). Creating sustainable rural development through stimulating the eco-economy: Beyond the eco-economic paradox? Sociologia Ruralis, 49(3), 274–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichfield, N. (1996). Community impact evaluation: Principles and practice. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (2005). Millennium ecosystem assessment: Current state and trends assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press. http://www.milleniumassessment.org/en/Condition.aspx. Accessed 28 Nov 2017.

  • Mickwitz, P. (2003). A framework for evaluating environmental policy instruments: Context and key concepts. Evaluation, 9(4), 415–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NCC (Natural Capital Committee). (2015). The state of natural capital: Protecting and improving natural capital for prosperity and wellbeing. London: Natural Capital Committee. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/natural-capital-committees-third-state-of-natural-capital-report. Accessed 28 Nov 2017.

  • Norgaard, R. B. (2010). Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics, 69, 1219–1227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, P. J., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T. A., & Hacsi, T. A. (2000). Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise, and problems. In P. J. Rogers, T. A. Hacsi, A. Petrosino, & T. A. Huebner (Eds.), Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russel, D., & Jordan, A. (2007). Gearing up governance for sustainable development: Patterns of policy appraisal in UK central government. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spangenberg, J., von Haaren, J., & Settele, J. (2014). The ecosystem service cascade: Further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy. Ecological Economics, 104, 22–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, F. (2006). Principles for social impact assessment: A critical comparison between the international and US documents. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26, 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gallent, N., Hamiduddin, I., Juntti, M., Livingstone, N., Stirling, P. (2019). Assessing the Impacts of Investment. In: New Money in Rural Areas. Palgrave Pivot, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0770-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0770-6_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0769-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0770-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics