ArticlePloS one2026
Economic benefits of aquatic invasive species management in freshwater systems: A contingent valuation study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.