Research Article Economic Valuation for Cultural and Passive Ecosystem Services Using a Stated Preference (Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)) Case of the Elgeyo Watershed Ecosystem, Kenya Justus E. Eregae , 1 Paul Njogu , 1 Rebecca Karanja , 2 and Moses Gichua 3 1 Institute of Energy and Environmental Technology (IEET) of JKUAT, P.O. Box 62000-00200, Nairobi, Kenya 2 Plant and Microbial Sciences Department, Kenyatta University (KU), P.O. Box 43844-00100, Nairobi, Kenya 3 Botany Department, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT), P.O. Box 62000-00200, Nairobi, Kenya Correspondence should be addressed to Justus E. Eregae; jeregae@gmail.com Received 25 April 2021; Accepted 2 August 2021; Published 16 August 2021 Academic Editor: Anna ´ Zr´ obek-Sokolnik Copyright © 2021 Justus E. Eregae et al. is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Valuation of ecosystem services (ESs) can be typical as use values and passive use values. However, the prevailing conventional markets provide economic instruments such as price tags to ecosystem use values, but rarely on passive use values. is is limited since it does not provide comprehensive ecological values that will adequately support rational decision-making processes regarding ecological conservation. e study adopted the contingency valuation method (CVM) where three hundred and eighty households of communities living within the Elgeyo watershed were sampled. e findings recorded 97% of the population was willing to pay for the ESs quoted. Individual maximum WTP ranged between 1 USD and 57.1 USD (cultural), 1 USD and 95.2 USD (bequest), and 1 USD and 76.2 USD (biodiversity conservation). e overall mean maximum WTP was 7.4 ± 0.34 USD, 9.1 ± 0.49 USD, and 11.1 ± 0.68 USD for the cultural, bequest, and biodiversity, respectively. e multivariate regression (maximum WTP as a function of administrative location, education, income, sex, age, and livestock number) exhibited a significant difference regardless of multivariate criteria used, where Wilks’ lambda has F (75,203) � 4.03, p < 0.001. e findings provide an economic value for nonuse values that can be incorporated in total economic valuation (TEV) studies locally as well as provide an impetus on payment of ecosystem services (PES) in Kenya. 1. Background Ecosystem services (ESs) are direct and indirect benefits that the nature provides to the society, fundamental to human welfare, with genuine economic development, which people value [1–6]. System Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) explicitly demonstrates the linkages between ESs with the economy and human livelihood program and how human development programs affect the stock and flow of ES in the future [7]. However, though the society depends on the nature for its survival and development, its economic value is invisible in policy and decision-making processes. Benefit and the subsequent degradation cost of our eco- systems have, in many instances, gone largely unnoticed [8]. Valuation of ESs becomes essentially important to not only account for the benefit acquired from the nature but also express and report in monetary terms the impact and cost of degrading our ecosystems and biodiversity [9]. Furthermore, the valuation of the ecosystem and biodiversity is a pre- requisite for the establishment of a market-based mecha- nism such as payment of ecosystem services to reward conservation efforts and promote the enhanced flow of ESs [10]. Taking cognizance of the nature and benefits provided would be regarded as step one, but an estimation of ES worthiness more so in monetary terms would be more persuasive in decision making and, thus, encourage the incorporation of the same in their decisions [9, 11]. e total economic valuation (TEV) framework has broadly grouped ESs as “use” and “nonuse/passive” values [4, 8]. Assessment and measurement of ESs could be Hindawi International Journal of Forestry Research Volume 2021, Article ID 5867745, 12 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5867745