Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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. This is limited since it does not provide comprehensive ecological values that will adequately support rational decision-making processes regarding ecological conservation. The study adopted the contingency valuation method (CVM) where three hundred and eighty households of communities living within the Elgeyo watershed were sampled. The 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). The 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. The 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, p0.001 . The 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.
Eregae et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: