1. Testing alternative indicators for biodiversity conservation in old- growth boreal forests: ecology and economics Artti Juutinen 1 & Mikko Mönkkönen 2 1 University of Oulu/Faculty of Economics and Industrial Management, Finland 2 University of Oulu/Department of Biology, Finland

2. Background Habitat loss Setting aside areas that are particularly biodiverse: site selection problem The contribution, which the area can make to represent the overall biodiversity It is costly to measure the overall biodiversity Surrogate measures of biodiversity

3. Background How is one to choose a good indicator? Indicators should reflect the overall biodiversity (the chosen ecological features that are regarded important) Indicators should not be expensive to monitor Formal tests are required

4. Method Site selection models Clear-cutting or protection We compare the benchmark models and indicator models In the benchmark the focus is on species diversity, best available data The benchmark selection represents the maximum level of biodiversity in the area at given resources devoted to conservation

5. Method B The goal level of representation (B) Conservation costs (excluding inventory costs) Representation of species a Benchmark selection Indicator selection A Funds available for conservation (A) b

6. Method

7. IDIV-model  Maximize species richness in the selected stands subject to the given budget constraint (species are counted once, if they are present in the selected stands)  The IDIV model, which incorporates information on all species, is the benchmark model with which all the other models are compared.  Budget constraint: INUM-model  Maximize count of species in the selected stands subject to the given budget constraint (species are counted as many times as they are present in the selected stands)

8. Method

9. Data 32 SEMI-NATURAL OLD GROWTH FORESTS STANDS FROM FINLAND IN THE OPTIMIZATIONS THE STANDS WERE TREATED AS HAVING EQUAL SIZE FOUR FOREST TYPES, EIGHT REPLICATES OF EACH  XERIC CONIFEROUS FORESTS, MESIC SPRUCE FORESTS, SPRUCE MIRES, HERB RICH SPRUCE DOMINATED HEATH FORESTS SPECIES, 632 (PRESENCE/ABSENCE)  VASCULAR PLANTS (103), BIRDS (30), WOOD-INHABITING FUNGI (64), BEETLES (435) DECAYING WOOD COMMERCIAL VALUES OF THE STANDS  THE OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF CONSERVATION  MAXIMUM NPV FOR EACH STAND, MELA-MODEL  FAUSTMANN ROTATION MODEL INVENTORY COSTS OF THE SPECIES GROUPS AND DECAYING WOOD

10. Data INDICATORS  TAXONOMIC GROUPS  A SUBGROUP OF OLD-GROWTH FOREST INDICATOR SPECIES BASED ON THEIR KNOWN STATUS AS OLD-GROWTH FOREST SPECIALISTS (42 species including species of birds, beetles and wood- inhabiting fungi)  THE AMOUNT AND QUALITY OF DECAYING WOOD

11. Results

14. Conclusions The use of indicators seems to result in a loss of overall diversity. It is important to consider trade-offs between conservation costs and diversity loss when assessing the goodness of an indicator. Biodiversity indicators can be tested in economic context by using integrated site selection model. Biodiversity indicators can be tested in economic context by using integrated site selection model. Species richness based model may not be appropriate for indicator groups having small number of species. Species richness based model may not be appropriate for indicator groups having small number of species. It seems to be more efficient to use indicators than execute large biodiversity survey. It seems to be more efficient to use indicators than execute large biodiversity survey. -how to reduce inventory costs of biodiversity surveys? Birds and vascular plants should be used as indicators in protecting boreal old-growth forests in the study area. Birds and vascular plants should be used as indicators in protecting boreal old-growth forests in the study area.