Economic benefits of aquatic invasive species management in freshwater systems: A contingent valuation study
- 1Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America
- 2Sustainable Agricultural Water Systems Research, USDA-ARS, Davis, California, United States of America
- 3Department of Forest Resources, Center for Changing Landscapes, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States of America
Abstract
Aquatic invasive species (AIS) cause significant ecological and economic impacts, including habitat damage, degradation of water quality, and reduced recreational opportunities. While many of these effects are well documented, less is known about how the general public perceives and engages with AIS in regions with significant freshwater infestations. To this end, we conducted surveys of general residents and lake association members, a self-selected stakeholder sample drawn from a lake advocacy organization in Minnesota, USA, a state where over half of its waters (by area) are affected by AIS, with the objective of estimating households’ willingness to pay (WTP) for managing AIS populations. Using a single-bounded trichotomous-choice question, we asked respondents whether they would support an annual increase in property tax or rent, with the generated revenue earmarked for AIS prevention, control, and containment. We conservatively estimate that general households are willing to pay 35–40 per year, while lake association members are willing to pay 64–75 per year. These results indicate broad public support across both samples, with higher WTP among those with direct connections to the affected systems, including recreational users and those who trust resource managers. From a policy perspective, our findings have two implications. First, they can help policymakers and resource managers more effectively target financial and outreach strategies. Second, the WTP estimates provide a foundation for incorporating public preferences into conservation funding decisions.
Related
- Economic valuation of ecosystem services in agriculture and agroforestry: A meta-analysis
- Socio-economic status of pig rearers and management system of native pigs in Bangladesh
- Modelling Resistance Management Benefits of Incomplete Cross‐Resistance Within a Fungicide Mode of Action Group
- Multilateral governance of invasive alien species management: An ecological-economic model with Allee effect
- Navigating fragmented and contingent support: A qualitative study of British Armed Forces families raising neurodivergent children
BibTeX
@article{puri2026economic,
title = {{Economic benefits of aquatic invasive species management in freshwater systems: A contingent valuation study}},
author = {Roshan Puri and Lucia R. Levers and Amit K. Pradhananga},
journal = {PLOS One},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0346515},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346515},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Economic benefits of aquatic invasive species management in freshwater systems: A contingent valuation study
AU - Roshan Puri
AU - Lucia R. Levers
AU - Amit K. Pradhananga
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/16
JO - PLOS One
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0346515
UR - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346515
AB - Aquatic invasive species (AIS) cause significant ecological and economic impacts, including habitat damage, degradation of water quality, and reduced recreational opportunities. While many of these effects are well documented, less is known about how the general public perceives and engages with AIS in regions with significant freshwater infestations. To this end, we conducted surveys of general residents and lake association members, a self-selected stakeholder sample drawn from a lake advocacy organization in Minnesota, USA, a state where over half of its waters (by area) are affected by AIS, with the objective of estimating households’ willingness to pay (WTP) for managing AIS populations. Using a single-bounded trichotomous-choice question, we asked respondents whether they would support an annual increase in property tax or rent, with the generated revenue earmarked for AIS prevention, control, and containment. We conservatively estimate that general households are willing to pay 35–40 per year, while lake association members are willing to pay 64–75 per year. These results indicate broad public support across both samples, with higher WTP among those with direct connections to the affected systems, including recreational users and those who trust resource managers. From a policy perspective, our findings have two implications. First, they can help policymakers and resource managers more effectively target financial and outreach strategies. Second, the WTP estimates provide a foundation for incorporating public preferences into conservation funding decisions.
SN - 1932-6203
ER -