Download PDF - Anchor Environmental

7 OPTION AND NON-USE VALUE
Option value is the ‘future use value” that could be derived from the area, but which as yet to be
realised. Maintaining biodiversity is believed to retain the option to generate such values in future.
These values could be, for example, from the exploitation of hitherto unexploited species, the
discovery of important genetic material of use in the pharmaceutical industry, or the future tourism or
development potential of the area. It is not possible to measure option value, since no-one can
predict the future, but it is important to bear this in mind as a potential opportunity cost of degradation.
Existence value is the appreciation people derive from the knowledge that something exists, while
bequest value is the value derived from knowing that one’s children will be able to enjoy something in
the future. The growing popularity of the environmental movement indicates the substantial worth of
biodiversity, particularly verified by people’s willingness to donate to help protect species and
ecosystems they have never, and will never, directly interact with. The Okavango Delta contains
noteworthy biodiversity, although it is not particularly well endowed with endemism. Perhaps the
greatest attribute of the delta in this regard is its extent and intactness as a wilderness area. Anything
that impinges on this pristine character is likely to affect the utility derived by people from this area.
Value may also be placed on the intactness of traditional peoples and practices. Much of the
traditional culture persists and is a source of pride. Degradation of the wetland and its resources
might ultimately lead to some degree of cultural decay. This decay could result from the loss of
traditional plants for food and medicine, for example. Other more abstract impacts may result from
the breakdown of gender roles without re-enforcement of such activities as hunting and collecting or a
widening rich-poor disparity.
Estimating the existence value (including bequest value) of the Okavango Delta would require a
substantial undertaking, involving the use of contingent valuation, a survey based method (Arrow et
al. 1993). It would involve eliciting a willingness to pay from all those who derive such utility from the
area. Since the Okavango Delta is of world renown, this should ideally be a global study. It is
probable that the existence value among the international community far exceeds that of Botswana
nationals’ existence value of the delta, or their ‘willingness to pay’ for its continued existence.
The measurement of existence value was beyond the scope of this study. However, at least two
studies have considered this problem at some level. Barnes (1996) surveyed visitors to Botswana
and ascertained the amount they were willing to pay towards a conservation fund for Botswana’s
wildlife. Tourists were willing to pay P125 on average, suggesting a total aggregate willingness to pay
(WTP) among users alone of some P8 million (equivalent to about $4 million at the time).
Mmopelwa (2005) conducted a contingent valuation survey in the Delta area in which both resident
households and visitors were asked what they would be willing to pay to a conservation fund to
ensure conservation of the Okavango Delta. Households were allowed to express this in terms of
livestock or produce. Seventy percent of households and 33.3% of tourists had a positive WTP.
Households had a mean WTP of just under P50, amounting to a total of about P53 000. Tourists had
a mean WTP of about P1050, amounting to an estimated total of P13 million. Note that in both of
these studies this is a once-off payment, and not an annual value.
These estimates greatly underestimate the existence value of the delta, however, as they only reveal
the WTP of those that people that happened to be visiting the delta in a particular year. In this regard,
one could assume that similar WTP prevails for each new visitor to the delta, and given that most
visits are once-off, that the values could be assumed to be annual as a minimum estimate. However,
this still only considers visitors to the delta. There are a great deal more people, including many who
cannot afford to visit the area, who would express a willingness to pay for conservation of this area.
This would include both Botswana nationals and the global community. For example, the existence
value of South African biodiversity is estimated to be at least $263 million per year to South Africans
alone (Turpie 2003). Indeed, many studies have found that existence value exceeds the direct use
value of ecosystems. Thus there is a strong case for conducting a proper study of the existence
value of the Okavango Delta that takes the non-user community into account.
68