IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-02-61.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Tax Rules, Land Development, and Open Space

Author

Listed:
  • Simpson, R. David

Abstract

Concern about “open space” is growing. Conservation advocates worry that private land use decisionmakers preserve too little open space. Yet private land developers are deciding on their own to preserve open space in new developments because it provides amenities to purchasers of lots. Moreover, tax provisions provide incentives for preserving more open space than would be privately optimal. Many jurisdictions have adopted “use-value assessment” standards granting favorable tax treatment to lands maintained in open space. Also, donations of open space can be deducted from income in computing tax liabilities. Both factors may be empirically important, although tax deductibility may have larger conservation effects than does use-value assessment. These conclusions raise several unanswered questions: How important are tax incentives in practice? Do they motivate enough conservation of open space? Do tax incentives target the right conservation priorities?

Suggested Citation

  • Simpson, R. David, 2002. "Tax Rules, Land Development, and Open Space," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-61, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-02-61
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-02-61.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Cornes & Charles F. Mason & Todd Sandler, 1986. "The Commons and the Optimal Number of Firms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(3), pages 641-646.
    2. Anderson, John E. & Griffing, Marlon F., 2000. "Use-Value Assessment Tax Expenditures in Urban Areas," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 443-452, November.
    3. John E. Anderson, 1993. "Use-Value Property Tax Assessment: Effects on Land Development," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(3), pages 263-269.
    4. T. Nicolaus Tideman, 1990. "Integrating Land-Value Taxation with the Internalization of Spatial Externalities," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 66(3), pages 341-355.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kashian, Russell, 2004. "State Farmland Preferential Assessment: A Comparative Study," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 34(1), pages 1-12.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simpson, R. David, 2002. "Tax Rules, Land Development, and Open Space," Discussion Papers 10741, Resources for the Future.
    2. Bigelow, Daniel P. & Kuethe, Todd, 2023. "The impact of preferential farmland taxation on local public finances," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    3. John Anderson, 2005. "Taxes and Fees as Forms of Land Use Regulation," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 413-427, December.
    4. Aggarwal, Rimjhim & Narayan, Tulika A., 2000. "Does Inequality Lead To Greater Efficiency In The Use Of Local Commons? The Role Of Strategic Investments In Capacity," Working Papers 28572, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    5. Lori Bennear & Robert Stavins, 2007. "Second-best theory and the use of multiple policy instruments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 111-129, May.
    6. Benchekroun, Hassan & Ray Chaudhuri, Amrita, 2011. "Environmental policy and stable collusion: The case of a dynamic polluting oligopoly," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 479-490, April.
    7. Ignace Adant & Pierre Fleckinger, 2005. "Controling externalities with asymmetric information : Ferrous Scrap Recycling and the Gold Rush Problem," Working Papers hal-00243017, HAL.
    8. Dragone Davide & Lambertini Luca & Palestini Arsen & Tampieri Alessandro, 2013. "On the Optimal Number of Firms in the Commons: Cournot vs Bertrand," Mathematical Economics Letters, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 25-34, October.
    9. John Deskins & William Fox, 2008. "Measuring Behavioral Responses to the Property Tax," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper0816, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    10. Aggarwal, Rimjhim M. & Narayan, Tulika A., 2004. "Does inequality lead to greater efficiency in the use of local commons? The role of strategic investments in capacity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 163-182, January.
    11. Syed Shurid Khan & Shawn Arita & Richard Howitt & PingSun Leung, 2022. "Evaluating change in property tax regime on noncommercial food production using a modified positive mathematical programming model," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(9), pages 1-20, September.
    12. Ok, Efe A. & Sethi, Rajiv & Kockesen, Levent, 1997. "Interdependent Preference Formation," Working Papers 97-18, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    13. О. A. Antoncheva & Т. Е. Apanasenko, 2019. "A Socialized Land Rent as Alternative to Taxation and the Change of Social Structure," Administrative Consulting, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. North-West Institute of Management., issue 12.
    14. Tracy Stobbe & Geerte Cotteleer & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2008. "Hobby Farms and Protection of Farmland in British Columbia," Working Papers 2008-01, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
    15. Alauddin, Mohammad & Tisdell, Clem, 1989. "Rural Poverty and Resource Distribution in Bangladesh: Green Revolution and Beyond," 1989 Occasional Paper Series No. 5 197711, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Allison Borchers & Jennifer Ifft & Todd Kuethe, 2014. "Linking the Price of Agricultural Land to Use Values and Amenities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1307-1320.
    17. Mason, Charles F. & Sandler, Todd & Cornes, Richard, 1988. "Expectations, the commons, and optimal group size," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 99-110, March.
    18. Feichtinger, Gustav & Lambertini, Luca & Leitmann, George & Wrzaczek, Stefan, 2022. "Managing the tragedy of commons and polluting emissions: A unified view," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(1), pages 487-499.
    19. Johnston, Robert J., 2003. "Farmland Preservation and Differential Taxation: Evaluating Optimal Policy Under Conditions of Uncertainty," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 1-11, October.
    20. Jyh-Bang Jou & Tan Lee, 2008. "Neutral Property Taxation Under Uncertainty," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 211-231, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    income tax; property tax; tax deductions; use-value assessment; ecosystem services; open space; conservation; amenity value;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • H71 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-02-61. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.