2013
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2316911
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Aquatic Invasive Species on Home Prices

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The authors noted the more than 500 infested lakes in the state of Wisconsin, and that the total amount of funding dedicated to aquatic invasive species management across the state was at the time of writing approximately $4 million. Also in Wisconsin, Johnson and Meder (2013) found that when entered alone, the presence of milfoil had no significant price impact, whereas when entered simultaneously with a variable accounting for the presence of Zebra mussels, the effect of milfoil became significant (-5%). Olden and Tamayo (2014) demonstrated a more substantial negative impact in King County, Washington, where the presence of milfoil reduced sales prices by $94,385, or 19%, an aggregate average cost of $377,542 per year per additional lake invaded.…”
Section: Terrestrial Invasivesmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The authors noted the more than 500 infested lakes in the state of Wisconsin, and that the total amount of funding dedicated to aquatic invasive species management across the state was at the time of writing approximately $4 million. Also in Wisconsin, Johnson and Meder (2013) found that when entered alone, the presence of milfoil had no significant price impact, whereas when entered simultaneously with a variable accounting for the presence of Zebra mussels, the effect of milfoil became significant (-5%). Olden and Tamayo (2014) demonstrated a more substantial negative impact in King County, Washington, where the presence of milfoil reduced sales prices by $94,385, or 19%, an aggregate average cost of $377,542 per year per additional lake invaded.…”
Section: Terrestrial Invasivesmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…They benefit from ecosystem changes and habitat disturbances caused by global climatic change and anthropogenic impacts [4]. AIPs degrade the natural local ecosystem by outcompeting native species [5], negatively affecting the waterfront property values [6,7], and hampering commercial and recreational fishing (and associated losses in taxes and economic revenue) [8]. It was estimated that the annual cost of invasive species invasion in the United States increased from USD 2 billion in 1960-1969 to USD 21 billion in 2010-2020 [9].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, zebra mussels cost businesses and communities over $5 billion in the first 10 years after invasion alone (Boelman et al, 1997) and emerald ash borers have been estimated to cost $10 billion over a decade in lost forest resources (Kovacs et al, 2010). Collectively, invaders threaten United States agriculture (Paini et al, 2016), damage critical infrastructure (e.g., water treatment facilities, electrical power; Boelman et al, 1997, Connelly et al, 2007, and substantially lower the value of property and other personal assets (Johnson and Meder, 2013). For example, rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) caused an estimated $62 million annual loss to wheat, potato, legume, and hay crops in Washington state alone (Mefford et al, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%