2026-10-14T15:04:04Z https://api.figshare.com/v2/oai

oai:figshare.com:article/33867057 2026-09-16T17:46:09Z category_39 category_734 category_106 portal_5 item_type_3 month_year_09_2026

<p>Description and definition of the variables.</p> Roshan Puri (24998859) Lucia R. Levers (10647476) Amit K. Pradhananga (10647479) Ecology Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified Science Policy reduced recreational opportunities lake association members lake advocacy organization incorporating public preferences including recreational users including habitat damage generated revenue earmarked effectively target financial cause significant ecological asked respondents whether significant freshwater infestations wtp estimates provide higher wtp among general public perceives trust resource managers managing ais populations resource managers freshwater systems general residents general households would support well documented water quality two implications property tax policy perspective outreach strategies help policymakers economic impacts economic benefits direct connections conservatively estimate conducted surveys choice question bounded trichotomous annual increase <div><p>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.</p></div> 2026-09-16T17:45:57Z Dataset Dataset 10.1371/journal.pone.0346515.t001 https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/_p_Description_and_definition_of_the_variables_p_/33867057 CC BY 4.0