Mixed-method assessment reveals ecological and economic effects of water hyacinth in Nigeria’s aquaculture, highlighting community support for control measures.
• Assessed community’s perceptions of the ecological and economic impacts of water hyacinths and their readiness to fund control measures. • Water hyacinth severely disrupts Nigerian aquaculture, damaging fish production and infrastructure. • 81 % of fish farmers are financially willing to support control programs, and on average, a household is willing to pay ₦2492. • Mixed-method analysis, including Heckman's model, revealed that income, gender and education influence willingness to pay (WTP) values. Nigeria’s aquaculture sector, vital for food security and rural livelihoods, is increasingly threatened by the unchecked spread of water hyacinth. This study applied a mixed-methods approach, combining 22 key informant interviews (KIIs), field observations, informal interviews, and a survey of 454 fish farmers to assess its impacts and farmers’ willingness to support control measures. Results show widespread recognition of negative effects, including reduced fish catch, poor water quality, damaged infrastructure, with strong community demand for intervention. On average, households are willing to contribute ₦2492 (USD 1.51) per month for 20 years to finance control measures. Econometric analysis indicates that willingness to pay (WTP) is shaped by the interaction of income and education, as well as gender and regional differences, rather than income alone. While education moderates income to increase WTP, the education–income interaction negatively affects participation. Notably, these contrasting effects on participation (negative) and WTP (positive) can be understood through the lens of collective action theory. These findings emphasize the need to integrate community perceptions with economic valuation to design inclusive and regionally tailored control strategies, strengthening resilience in Nigeria’s aquaculture sector.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zewdie et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: