Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-p5m67 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-31T16:23:14.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Model to Explain Participation in New York's Agricultural Districts and Use-Value Assessment Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Richard N. Boisvert ,
Nelson L. Bills  and
Elizabeth Bailey
Richard N. Boisvert
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University
Nelson L. Bills
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University
Elizabeth Bailey
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University
Get access

Abstract

Logit regression models are estimated to identify factors affecting decisions to enroll farmland in New York's agricultural districts program and participate in the use-value assessment program. The results suggest that the districts law is consistent with preserving the best farmland at the rural-urban fringe and that the decision to enroll in agricultural districts affects in a recursive fashion the decision to participate in the use-value assessment program. Short-term monetary gains are the overriding considerations in applying for use-value exemptions. This may lead to additional erosion of the tax base via tax preferences for agricultural land.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , October 1988 , pp. 167 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Amemiya, T. “Qualitative Response Models: A Survey.” Journal of Economic Literature, 19 (1981):1483–1536.Google Scholar
Boisvert, R., Bills, N. and Solomon, R. “Evaluation of Farmland Use-Value Assessment in New York.” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, 9 (1980):17–22.Google Scholar
Buse, A. “Goodness of Fit in Generalized Least Squares Estimation.” American Statistician, June, 1973, pp. 106–08.Google Scholar
Capps, O. Jr., and Kramer, R. “Analysis of Food Stamp Participation Using Qualitative Choice Models.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 67 (1985):49–59.Google Scholar
Chambers, R. and Foster, W. “Participation in the Farmer-Owned Reserve Program: A Discrete Choice Model.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65 (1983):120–24.Google Scholar
Cox, D. The Analysis of Binary Data. London: Methuen, 1970.Google Scholar
Domencich, T. and McFadden, D. Urban Travel Demand: Behavioral Analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1975.Google Scholar
Extension Staff. New York Economic Handbook 1987: Agricultural Situation and Outlook. Department of Agricultural Economics, A. E. Ext. 86-35, Cornell University, December 1986.Google Scholar
Gardner, K. Agricultural District Legislation in New York: as Amended Through September 1987. Department of Agricultural Economics, A. E. Ext. 87-24, Cornell University, October 1987.Google Scholar
Giardina, D. and Dyke, P. County Identification Codes and Cross Reference Tables. Working Paper #67, Economics Statistics and Cooperatives Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1979.Google Scholar
Jones, J. and Barnard, C. Farm Real Estate: Historical Series Data, 1950–85. Statistical Bulletin Number 738, Economic Research Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington. D.C., 1985.Google Scholar
Judge, G., Hill, R., Griffiths, W, Lutkepohl, H., and Lee, T. Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Econometrics, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1982.Google Scholar
Kaiser, H. and Lee, D. “An Aggregate Analysis of Bid Decisions for the Dairy Termination Program.” North Central Journal of Agricultural Economics, 9 (1987):259–69.Google Scholar
King, W. “Utilization of Agricultural Exemptions in New York State on 1975 and 1976 Assessment Rolls,” Department of Agricultural Economics, Staff Paper No. 78-2. Cornell University, March 1978.Google Scholar
Lee, D. and Boisvert, R. “Factors Affecting Participation in the Milk Diversion Program in the U.S. and New York.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 14 (1985):193–202.Google Scholar
Maddala, G. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA). Current State Farmland Protection Activities. Research Foundation Farmland Project, 1616 H Street, NW. Washington, D.C., January 1985.Google Scholar
New York State Division of Equalization and Assessment (E + A). Agricultural Use Assessment Impact Study for 1982. Albany, New York, November 1984a.Google Scholar
New York State Division of Equalization and Assessment (E + A). Exemptions from Real Property Taxation in New York State: County, City and Town Assessment Rolls Completed in 1982. Volumes I & II, Albany, New York, October 1984b.Google Scholar
New York State Office of the Comptroller. Special Report of the Comptroller on Municipal Affairs, 1981, Albany, N.Y 1983.Google Scholar
Pindyck, R. and Rubinfeld, D. Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts. 2nd edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981.Google Scholar
Ranney, C. A Study of the Interdependent Food Stamp Program Participation and Food Demand Decisions. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis, 1983.Google Scholar
Rahm, M. and Huffman, W. “The Adoption of Reduced Tillage: The Role of Human Capital and Other Variables.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66 (1984):405–13.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 1982 Census of Agriculture, AC82-A-32, Vol. 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 32, New York State and County Data, Washington, D.C., March 1984.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 1980 Characteristics of the Population: New York. Vol. 1, Part 34, Washington, D.C., February 1982.Google Scholar