|
|
- Info
An integrated analysis of the effectiveness of Tennessee's Forest Greenbelt Program
| Author: |
Williams, E.D.; Gottfried, R.R.; Brockett, C.D. [and others] |
| Date: |
2004 |
| Periodical: |
Landscape and Urban Planning |
| Link: |
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V91-4B6CPSB-1-S&_cdi=5885&_orig=browse&_coverDate=08/15/2004&_sk=999309997&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkWb&_acct=C000052423&_version=1&_userid=1355690&md5=7ca2318e64b9e983ebb0c5b07090eda0&ie=f.pdf
|
| Abstract: |
Concerns about the preservation of farm and forest land in the United States in the face of development pressures have led to many land preservation policies, including preferential, or use-value (UV), taxation of property. Use-value taxation permits landowners to continue deriving income from their land without having to pay the higher taxes occasioned by rising property values, which otherwise might force them to convert their land to other uses. Tennessee’s Forest Greenbelt Program differs from many in that enrollment is voluntary and that it is targeted specifically to forest landowners. We developed a theoretical framework to examine the effectiveness of the program in protecting forested land as a function of several criteria: (1) owners knowing about the program, (2) owners deciding to enroll once they learn about the program, and (3) owners deciding not to convert after enrolling in the program. In addition, the Greenbelt Program was considered cost-effective only if it primarily targeted those parcels facing conversion pressure. In an application of this framework using a probit analysis of landowner survey and tax data, we found that that the Greenbelt Program failed in protecting forested lands. Few knew about the program, and not all those who knew enrolled. Finally, the large majority of enrollees reported that the Greenbelt Program failed to affect their decisions to convert land in the future, and we found no evidence that those who reported some influence of the Greenbelt Program were influenced by the program’s economic incentives. |
|
