EXAMINING THE ROLE OF COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE IN FOSTERING  
 
ADAPTIVE CAPACITY: A CASE STUDY FROM NORTHWEST COLORADO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
by 
 
CHRISTINE A. GRUMMON 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A THESIS 
 
Presented to the Department of Geography 
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon 
in partial fulfillment of the requirements 
for the degree of 
Master of Science  
June 2016 
   ii 
THESIS APPROVAL PAGE 
 
Student: Christine A. Grummon 
 
Title: Examining the Role of Collaborative Governance in Fostering Adaptive Capacity: 
A Case Study from Northwest Colorado 
 
This thesis has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for 
the Master of Science degree in the Department of Geography by: 
 
Christopher Bone Member 
Daniel Gavin Member 
 
and 
 
Scott L. Pratt Dean of the Graduate School  
 
Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. 
 
Degree awarded June 2016 
  
   iii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
© 2016 Christine A. Grummon  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   iv 
THESIS ABSTRACT 
 
Christine A. Grummon 
 
Master of Science 
 
Department of Geography 
 
June 2016 
 
Title: Examining the Role of Collaborative Governance in Fostering Adaptive Capacity: 
A Case Study from Northwest Colorado 
 
 
Over the past two decades, the mountain pine beetle (MPB) has killed millions of 
acres of forest across western North America.  In addition to extensive environmental 
disturbance, the MPB epidemic has deeply impacted human systems, including 
motivating the formation of novel environmental governance arrangements.  In Colorado, 
the Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative (CBBC) formed as a collaboration between 
federal, state, and local stakeholders to address the epidemic. This study used a 
combination of GIS analysis and qualitative document analysis to understand how the 
CBBC has responded adaptively to changes in the landscape pattern of MPB damage.  I 
found that the CBBC was able to respond adaptively to changes in the MPB outbreak 
through shifting their organizational direction and activities.  However, the adaptive 
capacity of the group was constrained by logistical factors, the declining importance of 
MPB at a national level, and the ways in which the group framed the MPB problem.  
   v 
CURRICULUM VITAE 
 
NAME OF AUTHOR:  Christine A. Grummon 
 
 
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: 
 
 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 
 Grinnell College, Grinnell, IA 
 
 
DEGREES AWARDED: 
 
 Master of Science, Geography, 2016, University of Oregon 
 Bachelor of Arts, Human Ecology, 2011, Grinnell College 
 
 
GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS: 
 
Student Travel Grant, North American Cartographic Information Society Annual 
Meeting, 2015 
 
 Bill Loy Award for Excellence in Cartography, Department of Geography, 
University of Oregon, 2015 
 
 Honorable Mention, National Geographic Student Mapping Award, 2015 
 
  
 
   vi 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
 
I wish to sincerely thank Dr. Christopher Bone for his help in developing this 
project and preparing this manuscript. I would also like to thank my committee member 
Dr. Daniel Gavin for his feedback and input, and Dr. Cassandra Moseley for help in 
developing this study.  Additionally, this project would not have been possible with out 
the input, support and insight of Dr. Heidi Hueber-Sterns.  I would like to acknowledge 
and thank Abbie Cobb and Dr. Tony Cheng for graciously sharing materials and 
documents from the Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative, which out which this research 
would not be possible.  Finally I would like to thank Joe Bard, Jewell Bohlinger, Nicole 
Francisco, Cory Keeler, and Christina Shintani, for their support, inspiration, and advice. 
  
   vii 
 
 
 
For Jay Allen Haight, in memoriam  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   viii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Chapter Page 
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 
II. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 6 
 2.1 Theoretical foundations of collaborative environmental governance .............. 6 
 2.2 Successes and challenges for collaborative governance arrangements ........... 8 
III. METHODS 11 
  
 3.1 Case study context: The Colorado Bark Beetle Collaborative ........................ 11 
 3.2 Methodological approach ................................................................................. 13 
 3.3 Analyzing the spatio-temporal spread of MPB in Colorado ............................ 14 
 3.4 Detailed document analysis of CBBC meeting minutes .................................. 15 
IV. RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 18 
4.1 Spread of the MPB across Colorado ................................................................ 18 
4.2 CBBC membership and meeting participation ................................................ 23 
4.3 Role of parent organizations and CBBC relationship to other collaboratives . 25 
4.4 Area of operation ............................................................................................. 29 
4.5 Activities and organizational direction ............................................................ 31 
V. DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 38 
5.1 Membership, parent organizations and collaboration ...................................... 38 
5.2 Area of operation ............................................................................................. 40 
5.3 Activities and organizational direction ............................................................ 41 
5.4 Limitations and directions for future study ...................................................... 42 
VI. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................... 43 
   ix 
Chapter Page 
 
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 44 
 A. LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................... 44 
 B. CODEBOOK ..................................................................................................... 45 
 C. CBBC PARTICIPANT  LIST ........................................................................... 47 
REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................ 51 
   x 
LIST OF FIGURES 
 
Figure Page 
 
 
1. Map showing forest mortality from MPB from 1997-2012 ................................... 3 
 
2. Map showing the CBBC operating area at its founding in 2005 and after 2007. .. 11 
 
3. Area of publicly and privately owned forested and non-forested land, and water  12 
 
4. Map of publicly and privately owned forested and non-forested land, and water . 13 
5a. Maps showing ADS reported MPB damage in orange from 2005 to 2010 ........... 19 
5b. Maps showing ADS reported MPB damage in orange from 2011 to 2014 ........... 20 
6. MPB damage for all of Colorado, the CBBC operating area and outside the CBBC 
operating area from 1997 to 2014 .......................................................................... 21 
 
7. MPB damage for each county within the CBBC from 1997 to 2014 .................... 21 
8. Yearly MPB damage from 2005 to 2014 by forest ownership type ...................... 22 
9. Yearly MPB damage by forest ownership type as a proportion of the total amount 
 of public and private forests in CBBC operating area from 2005 to 2014 ............ 23 
 
10. CBBC Steering Committee meeting attendance  ................................................... 27 
11. Proportion of CBBC meeting attendance by affiliated organization type ............. 28 
   xi 
LIST OF TABLES 
 
Table Page 
 
 
1. Classification criteria of organizational affiliation ................................................ 17 
 
2. Attendees and organizations participating in meetings from 2007 to 2015 ........... 24 
 
   1 
CHAPTER I 
 
INTRODUCTION 
Over the past two decades, forests in western North America have experienced multiple 
native bark beetle outbreaks, resulting in widespread tree mortality (Bentz et al., 2010; Chapman 
et al., 2012; Jenkins et al., 2008; Raffa et al., 2008).  The spatial extent and synchrony of these 
outbreaks is historically unprecedented, with millions of acres of forests affected from Alaska to 
Mexico (Aukema et al., 2006; Bentz et al., 2010; Chen, 2014).  These disturbances profoundly 
impact not only forest ecosystems (Adams et al., 2010; Goetz et al., 2012; Jenkins et al., 2008), 
but also human communities and economies tied to forests and forest products (Davis & Reed, 
2013; Flint & Luloff, 2005; Flint et al., 2009; Kooistra & Hall, 2014; Qin et al., 2015). 
Native bark beetles are part of natural disturbance regimes in western North American 
forests and interact with fire, pathogens, and human-induced alteration to shape the structure and 
composition of forests (Jenkins et al., 2008). However, unlike disturbances such as fire that take 
place on a time scale of days to weeks, beetle outbreaks progress over seasons to years. Under 
suitable bioclimatic conditions, bark beetles outbreaks can sweep across vast swathes of forest 
with few management or containment options once populations have tipped into an epidemic 
stage (Gillette et al., 2014; Six et al., 2014).  Once beetles have entered an epidemic stage, they 
return to endemic levels only when susceptible tree hosts have been exhausted (Raffa et al., 
2008) or when unfavorable climate conditions persist.  While these native bark beetles occur at 
endemic levels in North America and outbreaks constitute a natural part of forest disturbance 
regimes, evidence suggests that recent high levels of beetle activity are correlated to changing 
temperature and precipitation patterns associated with global climate change (Allen et al., 2010; 
Bentz et al., 2010; Chapman et al., 2012; Gillette et al., 2014; Raffa et al., 2008; Williams et al., 
   2 
2010).  Additionally, forest management practices such as fire suppression, which affect stand 
age and diversity may have an effect on the susceptibility of forest landscapes to beetle outbreaks 
(Aukema et al., 2006; Gillette et al., 2014; Jenkins et al., 2008; Six et al., 2014). Raffa et al. 
(2008) illustrate the numerous thresholds that control the shift of beetle populations from 
endemic to epidemic states. These thresholds range from micro-level variables, such as host 
vigor, to meso-level characteristics such as stand composition, to landscape level factors such as 
climate, terrain and connectivity.  While the bioclimatic conditions that control beetle 
populations are complex, such work suggests numerous ways in which human decision-making 
might influence the severity of beetle outbreaks.  Given the complex and interacting human and 
ecological systems that shape the character and impacts of bark beetles, the current bark beetle 
outbreaks can be understood as coupled socio-ecological systems (SES) in which human and 
ecological systems reciprocally influence one another (Ostrom, 2009). 
The mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) (MPB) is one of the most 
aggressive irruptive native bark beetles in western North America.  A recent outbreak of MPB 
has impacted millions of acres of pine forests in the United States (Figure 1) and Canada (Bentz 
et al., 2010; Chapman et al., 2012; Hart et al., 2015; Hicke et al., 2012).  The MPB attacks 
several pine species, primarily lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and ponderosa pine (Pinus 
ponderosae).  While the ecological impacts of this infestation are profound and wide-ranging, 
the spread of the MPB is not just a biological phenomenon. The epidemic is playing out in both a 
physical and a socio-political landscape. Human actions from global climate change to local 
forest management practices have helped drive the unprecedented spread of MPB (Bentz et al., 
2010; Dale et al., 2001; Raffa et al., 2008), which in turn impacts human communities. The MPB 
epidemic presents a complex ecological problem with deeply felt social and economic impacts 
   3 
(Davis & Reed, 2013). Because of the complex, coupled nature of forest landscapes and the 
social systems embedded within them an examination of the human dimensions of forest insect 
disturbance is crucial to understanding the MPB socio-ecological system (Flint et al., 2009; Qin 
et al., 2015).  
 
Figure 1: Map showing forest mortality from MPB from 1997-2012 along with the range 
of lodgepole and ponderosa pine, the MPB’s two main host species 
 
One important dimension to consider when examining the human dimensions of the MPB 
socio-ecological system is ways in which human communities adapt to MPB induced forest 
   4 
disturbance. Adaptive capacity is one of the key lenses through which SES have been studied 
and can be defined as the ability of systems (human or non-human) to respond to or anticipate 
changes in a manner which mitigates the harm or harnesses the opportunities caused by such 
change (Seidl & Lexer, 2013; Tompkins & Adger, 2004).  Adaptive capacity is often articulated 
in relationship to resilience, which can be defined as the “capacity of a system to absorb 
disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same 
function, structure, identity, and feedbacks” (Walker et al., 2004).  Systems with greater adaptive 
capacity are theorized to also have greater resilience (Walker et al., 2004). In forest SESs, 
adaptive responses to change or disturbance are constrained by the long life span of trees 
(Lindner et al., 2010).  The long life cycles of forests also entail that human management 
decisions may have far-reaching consequences. For example, MPB disturbance in North 
American forests has not only incited a range of management decisions, but also inspired the 
formation of novel arrangement for forest governance (Davis & Reed, 2013; Flint, 2013; Parkins, 
2008).  Understanding the adaptive capacity of these responses is a crucial part both of 
highlighting effective strategies for dealing with large scale, beetle induced forest disturbance 
and for increasing our understanding of the MPB socio-ecological system as a whole.  
In Colorado, one of the states most severely impacted by the MPB, the epidemic has 
sparked the formation of several place-based forest collaboratives, which engage a range of 
stakeholders to address issues of disturbance and change in Colorado’s forests (Cheng et al., 
2015; Flint, 2013). These groups constitute novel collaborative governance arrangements. One 
such collaborative is the Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative (CBBC), which operates in 
northwest Colorado and has been active in formulating responses to the MPB epidemic. The 
CBBC formed in 2005 as a collaboration between municipal, county, state and federal 
   5 
stakeholders to address the issue of MPB damage in lodgepole pine forests in northwest 
Colorado, and remains active to the present day.  As an example of a collaborative governance 
arrangement that has been operating for much of the duration of MPB epidemic in Colorado, the 
CBBC provides a valuable case study in understanding how such governance regimes have 
shaped and been shaped beetle induced forest disturbance. The research question guiding this 
study is: In what ways has the CBBC been able to respond adaptively to changes in the MPB 
socio-ecological system? 
This study will incorporate an exploration of the spatio-temporal spread of the MPB in 
Colorado and a qualitative document analysis of the CBBC’s meeting minutes to understand how 
the activities, organizational direction, and membership of the CBBC have changed and adapted 
to the changing spatial extent of MPB damage on the landscape.  In this paper I will first give an 
overview of previous research conducted on collaborative governance arrangements and adaptive 
capacity (Chapter 2).  In Chapter 3, I detail the methods I used to explore the question of 
adaptive capacity in the CBBC over time.  Chapter 4 will give an overview of the landscape 
patterns of MPB damage over time in both Colorado generally, and the CBBC area specifically.  
I will then link these spatio-temporal patterns of forest disturbance to themes uncovered in my 
analysis of the CBBC meeting minutes regarding the group’s activities, membership, and 
organizational direction.  These results will then be discussed within the context of adaptive 
capacity and collaborative governance in Chapter 5, and conclusions will be detailed in Chapter 
6. 
 
 
 
   6 
CHAPTER II 
BACKGROUND 
 
2.1 Theoretical foundations of collaborative environmental governance  
Governance can be defined as the “structures and processes by which societies share 
power” (Lebel et al., 2006), and includes the rules, laws, and practices which guide collective 
decision-making (Ansell & Gash, 2008).  Environmental governance can then be construed as 
the political, social, economic and administrative systems which used to formulate and 
implement environmental policy (Pahl-Wostl, 2009). The literature on emerging forms of 
environmental governance suggests such arrangements embody a change in the way decisions 
over natural resources are made and implemented (Parkins, 2008).  The rise of governance as a 
model for political decision making is seen as an indication of the extent to which governments 
are increasingly dependent on the engagement of a multiplicity of non-state actors to form and 
implement policies (Bauer & Steurer, 2014; Pahl-Wostl, 2009). 
New forms of environmental governance arising in response to current environmental 
problems have been variously described as metagovernance (Parkins, 2008), multilevel 
governance (Davis & Reed, 2013), and cooperative governance (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Cheng et 
al., 2015); however, all of these terms share similar features of involving multiple stakeholders 
acting at different scales.  Participants in such governance arrangements may be from different 
public spheres, be combinations of public and private entities, and as well include civil society 
(Bauer & Steurer, 2014).  Ansell and Gash (2008) define collaborative governance specifically 
as “a governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state 
stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and 
   7 
deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or 
assets.” 
Much of the scholarly interest in collaborative governance has focused on the potential 
for such arrangements to respond adaptively to changing ecosystems and environmental 
disturbance. Adaptive capacity in socio-ecological systems has been defined as the capacity of 
actors in a system to influence that system’s resilience (Walker et al., 2004) and entails “that a 
system can get better at pursuing a particular set of management objectives over time and at 
tackling new objectives when the context changes” (Lebel et al., 2006).  Folke (2006) suggests 
that achieving adaptive governance relies on “a diverse set of stakeholders operating at different 
social and ecological scales in multi-level institutions and organizations” (Folke, 2006).  In their 
review of regional socio-ecological governance systems, Lebel et al. (2006) advance multilevel 
governance as a means of matching decision-making and learning to appropriate social and 
ecological scales.  Proponents of collaborative governance argue that such arrangements 
contribute to the adaptive capacity of socio-ecological systems by involving diverse stakeholders 
at multiple levels to manage uncertainty and difficult social trade-offs (Armitage, 2005; Folke et 
al., 2005; Gerlak & Heikkila, 2011; Lebel et al., 2006). 
While the literature on collaborative governance has promoted such arrangements as an 
adaptive response to failures of state managerialism, collaborative governance has faced 
criticism on theoretical and practical grounds (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Davis & Reed, 2013).  
Critics contend that such arrangements entail a devolution of responsibilities away from the state 
without a concomitant devolution of powers (McCarthy, 2005).  Practically, particularly in 
realms such as forest management, collaborative governance regimes must still confront 
entrenched government bureaucracies (Cheng et al., 2015).  Case studies of collaborative 
   8 
governance arrangements suggest that while these arrangements can promote inclusion and 
adaptive problem solving, they are also susceptible to compromising internal and external forces 
such as process cooption by powerful stakeholders, lack of strong links to bureaucracies with 
management authority, and adversarial distrust among stakeholders (Ansell & Gash, 2008; 
Cheng et al., 2015; Walker & Hurley, 2004).  
 
2.2 Successes and challenges for collaborative governance arrangements 
Adaptive capacity in collaborative, multilevel governance arrangements has been studied 
in multiple socio-ecological contexts.  Bauer and Steuer (2014) studied a range of regional 
partnerships in Canada and England as part of novel governance approaches in both countries to 
facilitate climate change adaptation.  In examining differences in programs between the two 
countries, the authors concluded that partnerships in both England and Canada were able to build 
adaptive capacities in private and public domain decision-makers and were successful in 
informing policy.  Despite these successes, the authors also found that all partnerships in both 
countries were limited by a lack of formal norm-setting and rule-making authority.  Bauer and 
Steuer concluded that while these governance arrangements were able to play significant roles in 
facilitation, because of their relatively weak political status and lack of resources, most were 
limited in delivering operational adaptive solutions.   
Collaborative governance has also been studied previously in relationship to bark beetle 
outbreaks.  Parkins (2008) examined the adaptation strategies of communities in the interior of 
British Columbia in response to the most recent MPB outbreak, which included the formation of 
several regional-scale beetle action coalitions.  These coalitions worked at a regional scale, with 
oversight, coordination, and financial support provided by the state, while communities and 
   9 
municipalities determined local objectives and strategies.  Parkins found that the two beetle 
action coalitions he studied were able to cultivate links to civil society and nongovernmental 
organizations in a way that helped fill a gap between municipal and provincial level politics.  
However, Parkins also found that the coalitions failed to significantly involve private partners in 
core ways, a key consideration in an area so dominated by the forest industry.  Parkins also 
observed that, despite containing elected representatives, these coalitions face challenges of civic 
engagement due to general public distrust of public sector institutions.  These results suggest 
that, while collaborative institutions can aid adaptive capacity in terms of increasing 
communication and mobilizing resources across scales of decision-making, such arrangements 
may still barriers of inclusiveness and legitimacy. 
In a long-term case study of the Front Range Round Table, another Colorado based 
collaborative governance arrangement, Cheng et al. (2015) examined the effects of internal and 
external forces on social capital, learning and flexibility.  These three characteristics are 
associated with the adaptive capacity of environmental governance regimes, and the authors 
found that over time each attribute was sensitive to both internal and external changes.   In the 
study, Cheng et al. found that the adaptive capacity of the group was compromised by an 
inability to translate recommendations for forest restoration into operational management actions 
by the US Forest Service.  The authors point to a lack of inclusion of Forest Service field-staff in 
the collaborative governance structure of Front Range Round Table as a cause of this disconnect.  
These results suggest that, while collaborative governance arrangements may be able to generate 
innovative governance solutions, such arrangements face challenges in implementing solutions 
when ultimate decision-making authority rests with state bureaucracies.  
   10 
Understanding the adaptive capacity of collaborative governance arrangements presents a 
key research direction for understanding the role that these arrangements will play in responding 
to global environmental change. Using a socio-ecological systems perspective on questions of 
adaptive capacity requires understanding not only how collaborative governance systems 
respond to changing social forces, but also how these arrangements are shaped by and respond to 
landscape changes.  Using the Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative as a case study of a 
collaborative governance arrangement, this research will examine how the CBBC has changed 
and adapted to the changing spatial extent of MPB infestation on the landscape. 
 
  
   11 
CHAPTER III 
METHODS 
3.1 Case study context: The Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative 
The initial participants in the CBBC were the United States Forest Service (USFS), the 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), the Colorado State 
Forest Service (CSFS) and the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG).  
Initially, the CBBC included five counties: Grand, Summit, Routt, Eagle and Jackson.  In 2007, 
Park, Pitkin, Garfield and Lake Counties joined the Cooperative. From the original participants, 
the CBBC decided to expand participation in 2007 and again in 2008 to include non-
governmental organizations including NGOs, private landowners, water utilities, power utilities, 
and emergency management.   
 
Figure 2: Map showing the CBBC operating area at its founding in 2005 and after 2007 
The counties comprising the CBBC contain communities with a diverse range of 
economic orientations, from high-end resort towns, to amenity-oriented communities, to 
   12 
communities primarily involved in ranching and logging (C. Flint, Qin, & Ganning, 2012).  The 
CBBC operating area also contains parts of three National Forests (Arapaho-Roosevelt NF, 
Medicine Bow-Routt NF, and White River NF) and one National Park (Rocky Mountain NP).  
All of the counties in the CBBC contain a large proportion of forested land, the majority of 
which is publicly owned (Figures 3 and 4). 
 
 
Figure 3: Area of publicly and privately owned forested and non-forested land, and water in 
CBBC counties 
 
   13 
 
Figure 4: Map of publicly and privately owned forested and non-forested land, and water in 
Colorado, with CBBC counties outlined in grey 
 
 
 
3.2 Methodological approach 
This study employed mixed methods to examine the relationship between the spatio-
temporal spread of the MPB in Colorado and adaptive changes in the activities, organizational 
direction, and membership of the CBBC.  The spread of MPB induced tree mortality was 
mapped over time using a geographic information system (GIS), and mortality was compared in 
different areas (CBBC vs. non-CBBC) and over different forest ownership (public vs. private).  
To then relate these patterns to changes in the CBBC, I conducted a qualitative detailed 
document analysis of the CBBC’s quarterly meeting minutes from 2007 through 2015.  Themes, 
patterns and key issues where identified from a qualitative coding of the minutes.  The content 
and timing of key passages were analyzed for their relationship to landscape patterns of MPB 
damage. To understand the relationship between group activities and coded themes and the 
   14 
spatial extent of MPB on the landscape, the data gathered qualitatively through the CBBC 
meeting minutes was qualitatively compared to the landscape presence of pine beetle damage. 
 
3.3 Analyzing the spatio-temporal spread of MPB in Colorado 
To measure the spread of the MPB over time, aerial survey data of MPB damage from 
the US Forest Service’s Aerial Detection Survey (ADS) (USFS, 1997-2014) mapped with the 
CBBC area of operation and across public and private forest ownership.  The ADS logs tree 
mortality from a variety of disturbance agents during yearly fly-overs, during which areas of 
damage or mortality are recorded as polygons.  Tree mortality caused by MPB is identified by 
the change in the color of tree needles from green to red.  This change from green to red needles 
typically occurs a year following successful beetle attach, and thus results in a lag between MPB 
attack and ADS detection (Chapman et al., 2012).  ADS data has been shown to be suitable for 
measuring forest mortality at scales of 500m or greater (Hart et al., 2015), making it suitable for 
the scale of this study.  
ADS data for MPB mortality was acquired for Region 2 of the US Forest Service.  Yearly 
shapefiles of MPB damage polygons were acquired for each year between 1997 and 2014.  Data 
from 2015 was not yet publicly available at the time of the study.  From the Region 2 data set, all 
damage polygons within Colorado were selected.  Because damage polygons did not always 
adhere to administrative boundaries, this selection method led to the inclusion of some polygons 
that fell partially outside of the state.  From the Colorado ADS data, the area of MPB damage 
was calculated over time for Colorado as a whole, the CBBC operating area as a whole, and the 
individual counties within the CBBC area.   Area calculations were made by selecting the ADS 
polygons within an area of interest and summing the area of the selected polygons. A t-test was 
   15 
conducted to compare the forest area damaged within the CBBC area and the forest area 
damaged outside of the CBBC area. 
Landownership data on forest ownership in the conterminous United States compiled by 
the U.S. Forest Service (Nelson et al., 2010) was used to calculate area of private and publicly 
owned forest in the CBBC operating area.  This forest ownership data set is a 250m resolution 
raster dataset prepared by the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program which classifies 
areas as public forest land, private forest land, public non-forest land, private non-forest land, 
and water. The polygons of MPB damage from the ADS data were used to extract the raster 
landownership data.  From the extracted landownership raster, the cell counts of each 
landownership type were used to calculate the area of public and private forest damaged by MPB 
over time.   To do this, I summed the total number of cells for each forest ownership type, 
calculated the size of an individual cell in acres, and multiplied that number by the total cell 
count.  In this way I calculated the amount of public and private forestland damaged by MPB in 
the CBBC operating area from 2005 (the foundation of the CBBC) to 2014 (the last year for 
which I had ADS data).  Additionally, to account for the generally greater proportion of public 
forestland in the CBBC area, I computed the area of each forest ownership type damaged by 
MPB as a percentage of the total amount of that forest ownership type in the study area.   
 
3.4 Detailed document analysis of CBBC meeting minutes 
To examine the response of the CBBC to patterns of MPB on the landscape, this study 
employed qualitative detailed document analysis of the CBBC’s quarterly steering committee 
meeting minutes. I coded 25 meeting minute documents from November 2007 to November 
2015. These minutes were obtained from the group’s website (http://nwccog.org/programs/rural-
   16 
resort-region/cbbc/), from the current coordinator of the group, and from a former group 
facilitator.  Meeting minutes were iteratively coded, such that as themes and topics of interest 
emerged, I returned to earlier coded documents to ensure that the documents were coded 
consistently and thoroughly. 
I employed a combination of structural coding and descriptive coding to elucidate themes 
and topics in the CBBC meeting minutes. Structural coding applies a conceptual phrase to data 
segments in order to code and categorize the data along a particular topic of inquiry (Saldaña, 
2009). Structural coding was used to identify broadly the activities the group was involved in or 
discussed.  Structural coding was also used to track discussions in the groups minutes about 
group identity, mission, and internal functioning. For example the following passage from the 
October 2008 meeting was coded “Membership”: 
[It was] pointed out that the old steering committee was made up of 
intergovernmental bites; Federal Land agencies, state agencies and local 
government. Now this is a new body and what had been done in terms of 
chartering and governing needs to start over from scratch.  We are re-constituting 
the steering committee to bring in a broader group of stakeholders. 
 
Descriptive coding was used to capture specific topics of discussion in the minutes, such 
as “water quality” or “hazards.”  A full list of codes used can be found in Appendix B.   These 
codes were applied when a passage specifically mentioned a topic, or when the topic could be 
derived from context. 
Additionally, to assess the participation and group membership over time, individuals 
listed in the attendance list of each meeting were coded into cases with their organizational 
affiliation (e.g. “Colorado Department of Transportation”) attributed.  A full list of participants 
and their organizational affiliation can be found in Appendix C.  Additionally, I categorized 
   17 
organization affiliation into 8 groups (Table 1).  These groups were adapted from Cheng et al. 
(2015).   
Organization Type Description 
Academic/Scientific Research and educational institutions, including colleges, 
universities and research institutes 
Environmental/Recreation Conservation groups, recreation interest groups, and other 
collaborative groups 
Government Elected officials, representatives, and members of non-land 
managing state agencies  
Land Manager Agencies responsible for public land management  
Media Media and news outlets or publications 
Private Private citizens, companies, and consultants 
Utility Electric and water utilities 
Wood Products Timber, wood products, and biofuel industry representatives 
 
Table 1: Classification criteria of organizational affiliation 
Together the descriptive and structural coding I conducted formed the basis of a narrative 
description of the CBBC’s adaptive capacity over time.  Changes in membership attendance of 
both individuals and affiliated organizations were plotted over time by meeting date to 
understand how the composition of the CBBC membership changed with changes in MPB 
disturbance.  The group’s operating area was examined both in terms of the spatial extent (e.g. 
what counties were included) and also in terms of the group’s discussion of the geographical 
basis of their mission.  Node frequency was not evaluated quantitatively, but was rather used to 
guide analysis of important trends and issues in the data.  The organizational direction of the 
group was examined over time through changes the group’s actual and proposed activities, and 
through the discussion of group mission and vision.  These findings were related to the landscape 
pattern of MPB damage both through explicit mention of MPB spread and damage patterns in 
the minutes, and through qualitatively comparing themes and patterns in group activity with 
changes in the MPB epidemic. 
   18 
CHAPTER IV 
RESULTS 
 
4.1 Spread of the MPB across Colorado 
During the temporal exent of data availability, the MPB epidemic followed a trajectory in 
Colorado of spreading south and east from Jackson and Grand Counties (Figure 5a and Figure 
5b).  Yearly additional damage peaked for both the state as a whole and for the CBBC area in 
2008, with 1.15 million acres of damage at the state level, of which 872,000 acres were in the 
CBBC area.  After 2008, additional yearly MPB damage decreased at both the state level and in 
the CBBC area (Figure 6). A t-test conducted comparing the forest area damaged within the 
CBBC area and the forest area damaged outside of the CBBC area showed that there was not a 
significant difference in the acres damaged by MPB within the CBBC area versus the rest of 
Colorado (t = 0.6, p = 0.54). However, the CBBC area showed a distinct temporal pattern of 
damage compared with the rest of the state, with beetle damage in the CBBC area peaking earlier 
than the peak of damage outside of the CBBC area (Figure 6). Between 2003 and 2009, beetle 
damage in the CBBC operating area accounted for the majority of beetle damage in Colorado.  
After 2008, the MPB outbreak spread east to the Front Range and it was here that a majority of 
damage occurred after 2009 (Figures 5a, 5b, and 6). 
Breaking down the CBBC area into constiuent counties reaveals that the original five 
CBBC counties of Summit, Routt, Grand, Jackson, and Eagle account for the majority of MPB 
damage in the CBBC area (Figure 7). 
 
 
 
   19 
 
2005           2006 
   
2007           2008 
   
2009          2010 
   
100 miles 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5a: Maps showing areas of ADS reported MPB damage in orange from 2005 to 2010.  
Counties included in the CBBC are outlined in dark grey. Map data courtesy of the USFS, 
Natural Earth Data, and BLM Colorado 
   20 
 
2011           2012 
   
2013           2014 
   
100 miles 
 
Figure 5b: Maps showing areas of ADS reported MPB damage in orange from 2011 to 2014.  
Counties included in the CBBC are outlined in dark grey. Map data courtesy of the USFS, 
Natural Earth Data, and BLM Colorado 
 
   21 
 
Figure 6: ADS reported MPB damage for all of Colorado (grey), for just within the CBBC 
operating area (brown), and from outside of the CBBC operating area (green) from 1997 to 2014 
 
 
Figure 7: ADS reported MPB damage for each county within the CBBC from 1997 to 2014 
 
 
   22 
Within the CBBC area, the bulk of the area of forest damage occurred on publicly owned forests 
(Figure 8).  Even when accounting for the fact that public forest lands comprise the majority of 
forested lands in the CBBC opperating area, public forest lands were still experienced MPB 
damage at a proportionally greater rate than private forest lands did, as shown in Figure 9.  
 
 
Figure 8: Yearly MPB damage in CBBC operating area from 2005 to 2014 by forest ownership 
type 
 
These findings show that the CBBC operating area contained the bulk of the MPB 
damage from the first part of the outbreak in Colorado, and that damage occurred mainly in 
public forests in the orginal five counties of the CBBC.  The second portion of my results will 
examine the degree to which the membership, area of operation, activities and organizational 
vision of the CBBC correlates to this spatio-temporal pattern of forest disturbance. 
 
   23 
 
Figure 9: Yearly MPB damage by forest ownership type as a proportion of the total amount of 
public and private forests in CBBC operating area from 2005 to 2014 by forest ownership type 
 
4.2 CBBC Membership and meeting participation 
At its founding in 2005, the CBBC was composed of federal land agencies, state 
agencies, and local governments. The initial participants in the CBBC were the United States 
Forest Service (USFS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service 
(NPS), the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) and the Northwest Colorado Council of 
Governments (NWCCOG).  The original steering committee sunset in December of 2007, and 
the same year the steering committee was reconstituted to include a broader group of 
stakeholders.  These additional stakeholders included NGOs, private landowners and water 
utilities.  In 2008, emergency management and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) 
joined the CBBC.  In the summer of 2008, the Colorado Forest Restoration Institute (CFRI), 
became involved with the CBBC to help facilitate the group’s growth and expansion.  The CFRI 
is a research institute housed at Colorado State University that is focused on forest restoration 
   24 
and wildfire mitigation. Also included in the CBBC membership at this time were 
representatives from the timber and wood products industries, and Colorado Mountain College. 
My examination of the CBBC meeting minutes documents showed that, over the course 
of my study period from 2007 to 2015, the CBBC had 138 unique attendees at their meetings.  
These attendees represented 70 different parent organizations (Table 2).   
 
Organization Type 
Number of 
Attendees 
Number of 
Organizations 
Academic/Scientific 11 5 
Environmental/Recreation 12 9 
Government 38 23 
Land Manager 43 4 
Media 2 2 
Private 15 14 
Utility 8 5 
Wood Products 9 8 
Total 138 70 
 
Table 2: Types and number of meeting attendees and organizations participating in CBBC 
meetings from 2007 to 2015 
 
Over time, land management agencies and government representatives have accounted 
for the majority of CBBC meeting attendees (Figures 10 and 11).  Figure 10 is a stacked bar 
chart showing the number of attendees at each meeting, with the number of individual from each 
organizational category (see Table 1) color coded.  This figure shows that the years 2009 and 
2010 have the highest meeting attendance, while attendance declined in 2012 and 2013 and 
reached a low in 2015 (Figure 10).  Figure 11 shows the proportion of the total attendance 
accounted for by each organizational category.  
   25 
While land management agencies such as the USFS comprised a large portion of 
attendees, individual representatives from these organizations typically did not have consistent 
meeting attendance: the  the most consistently attending participant attended 52% of meetings 
sampled, while the average participant attended 11% of meetings sampled.  Concern about USFS 
attendance was reflected in the July 2012 minutes: “At past CBBC meeting, the supervisors from 
all 3 forests would attend. They do not all attend meetings now. Concern was expressed that they 
are not all hearing info from the CBBC” (Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, July 2012). 
 
4.3 Role of parent organizations and CBBC relationship to other collaboratives 
Throughout its existence, the CBBC meetings have served as a space of information 
sharing. Nearly all meetings included a section entitled “CBBC member activities updates” in 
which members shared updates, tools, and research from their parent organizations.  In this way, 
the CBBC was able to connect membership with the activities and direction of their constituent 
organizations.  Information was disseminated about funding sources, treatment activity, 
conferences, and lobbying and outreach activities. Land management agencies disseminated 
information about forest treatments, as well as suggesting funding and grant opportunities.  
Researchers, environmental groups, and USFS and CSFS foresters provided research and 
insights on forest ecology and regeneration. Municipal and county representatives presented 
local projects and gave feedback on community concerns. Members from utilities highlighted 
concerns about infrastructure, while representatives from timber and wood products industries 
discussed developments in markets for beetle-killed wood.   
Such moments also allowed the CBBC membership to discuss and hone the CBBC’s own 
organizational goals in comparison to the efforts and activities of other groups.  Throughout the 
   26 
meeting minutes, CBBC members expressed a desire for the group to not duplicate the efforts of 
other groups and sought to explore where possible synergies existed between CBBC objectives 
and the goals of other groups. For example, in the October 2008 minutes, concern was expressed 
over forming a working group within the CBBC to address water quality: “There are two 
working groups - Watershed Protection Working Group on the west slope and on the front range 
a group called the Front Range Watershed Wildfire Protection Group – seemed like a duplicate 
effort to start another group through the CBBC” (Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, October 
2008).   
 Over the course of its history the CBBC has engaged with other collaboratives in addition 
to providing a forum for membership to exchange news and information from parent 
organizations.  In some cases, this has involved working jointly or supporting the efforts of 
collaboratives.  Occasionally, the CBBC discussed helping other collaboratives to form, as in the 
November 2007 minutes: “Beetles are active in 2 counties in southern Wyoming now – they 
need to start their own collaborative – how do we interact with other collaboratives?” (Steering 
Committee Meeting Minutes, November 2007).  However, the CBBC primarily interacted with 
preexisting collaboratives.   With the initiation of the Governor’s Forest Health Advisory 
Council (FHAC) in 2009, the CBBC engaged in more formal collaboration with other Colorado 
forest groups.  The CBBC was an active member of the FHAC from its initiation in 2009 until its 
formal dissolution in 2012, including participating in the development of the Lodgepole Pine 
Zone of Agreement (LPP ZOA).  The LPP ZOA was a working group convened by the FHAC to 
identify stakeholder areas of agreement where treatment of MPB affected lodgepole pine should 
occur.
  27 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 10: CBBC Steering Committee meeting attendance.  Color indicates type of attendee affiliate organization  
  
  28 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11: Proportion of CBBC meeting attendance by affiliated organization type 
 
   29 
One of the mandates to arise from the January 2010 meeting was to “[w]ork 
cooperatively with other Colorado place based collaboratives…It is Important to get the 
FHAC to work in DC for the CBBC and other Colorado collaboratives (they’ll provide 
the statewide focus)” (Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, January 2010).   The 
CBBC’s engagement with other collaboratives was thus employed both as part of the 
group’s objective of developing zones of agreement, and as a way to leverage greater 
power at the national level. 
During this time, the CBBC continued to lobby independently for their own 
objectives, but committed as an organization to “cooperate with all Colorado place based 
forest collaboratives and with the Governor’s Council [FHAC]. The CBBC will not 
compete for reallocation of existing funding, but rather will work with other forest 
collaboratives and the Governor’s Council to obtain additional funding for the state of 
Colorado.”(Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, January 2009). 
After the dissolution of the FHAC, the CBBC became part of the “Collaborative 
of Collaboratives,” a group meant to replace the FHAC as a place for forest groups to 
discuss forest health issues of mutual concern in Colorado.  However, this group does not 
appear to have been particularly active after 2012. The CBBC has continued to engage 
other collaboratives, both in having members of other collaborative groups attend 
steering committee meetings but primarily through conferences and meetings. 
 
4.4 Area of operation 
At it’s founding, the CBBC included five counties in northwest Colorado: Grand, 
Summit, Routt, Eagle and Jackson. In 2007, Park, Pitkin, Garfield and Lake Counties 
   30 
joined the Cooperative.  Four of the original five CBBC counties fall within the region 
served by the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, which includes Jackson, 
Grand, Eagle, Summit, and Pitkin Counties.  While the CBBC expanded into these four 
additional counties in 2007, Figure 7 shows that the majority of MPB damage in the 
CBBC area occurred in the five counties originally included in the CBBC. In part 
because of the involvement of county and municipal governments, the CBBC operating 
area was defined on a county basis.  However, the definition of where the CBBC 
operated remained a point of debate throughout the meeting minutes.  This discussion 
focused on the precise nature of the label “place-based,” and whether the area of CBBC 
should be defined politically (through counties), or ecologically through either a focus on 
MPB as a disturbance, or lodgepole pine and high altitude forests as an ecological unit of 
area. From the November 2007 minutes: “[A]re we geographic or species specific? – 
place based (need to focus attention on the short term)… we need to stick to the problems 
caused by bark beetles or it will get too huge…risk reduction across a 10 county area will 
have to address more than beetles” (Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, November 
2007).   The debate over how the group’s geographic area of concern should be defined 
related not just to where the CBBC should conduct research and outreach activities, but 
also shaped how the group defined their organizational mission in relation to their 
advocacy efforts.  For example, in the January 2010 meeting, a member asked: “if it is 
CBBC’s job to ask for support for other types of trees. The group agreed that the MPB 
was the CBBC’s focus and that ours is a compelling story which we need to use to get 
more funding for whole state” (Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, January 2010).   In 
November 2010, the group added a fifth object to their mission statement, stating, “the 
   31 
CBBC will develop and promote a vision for the short, mid, and long term high elevation 
forest landscape” (Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, November 2010).    
As the CBBC shifted towards an increased focus on human community resilience, 
the discussion of their geographic area of operation identified communities within the 
nine CBBC counties as the main concern of the CBBC. While the operational focus of 
the CBBC became communities within its nine county area, the environmental 
embeddedness of these communities within the forest remained important. This is 
exemplified in the April 2014 minutes: “The group was charged with addressing the 
realities of communities in disturbed forests – what are the hazards and values of the 
communities and what is there still to be done about them? The end result would be 
focused, collaborative actions for further mitigation” (Steering Committee Meeting 
Minutes, April 2014).   
 
4.5 Activities and Organizational Direction 
The CBBC began in 2005, during a period of steadily increasing damage, and the 
initial objectives of the group were to:  
• Protect homes, communities, human life and property 
• Protect watersheds and water supplies 
• Protect infrastructures and other important resource and social values 
As part of these objectives, much of the CBBC's initial work focused on hazard 
mitigation and developing zones of agreement among stakeholders for where forest 
treatments should occur. In November 2007 meeting minutes, the role of the CBBC was 
described as “being a conduit for information, getting resources enabling local groups to 
   32 
get chainsaws running in areas of consensus” (Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, 
November 2007).   Also during this time, the CBBC committed to operating as a 
collaborative (as opposed to a cooperative) and to reach decisions using a process of 
consensus. Throughout the group’s history, the consensus decision-making process has 
been constructed by the CBBC as a way to deliver “win-win” solutions to treatment 
decisions.  For example, in the November 2007 meeting, zones of agreement are 
described as a means of "consensus building, manag[ing] conflict and solv[ing] problems. 
Everybody at table benefits, collaboration is a way to generate support and public and 
NGO buy-in for decisions” (Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, November 2007).    
Collaborative mapping, in which stakeholders convened to identify priority areas for 
treatment, constituted an important component of developing operational zones of 
agreement.  The diversity of CBBC membership was used to both question and legitimize 
the consensus process as a means of developing zones of agreement. For example, in the 
September 2010 meeting it was asked, “Isn’t this group supposed to have all the 
representatives at the table? Shouldn’t this group be empowered and have the “right” to 
create the vision. If not, we need to widen our participation. CBBC is a leadership 
organization and needs to lead the way” (Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, 
September 2010).    
In 2007, the group discussed adding a fourth objective to address community 
sustainability and adaptation to disturbance.  Ultimately, the group adopted a fourth 
objective to “Develop community resilience to adapt to disturbance driven ecosystems” 
(Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, November 2007).   However, while community 
resilience was added as an objective during this time, the main focus of CBBC activity 
   33 
during this period was lobbying to get additional funds for mitigation and to remove 
administrative barriers to conducting treatments.  In the earlier years of the group’s 
history, the CBBC advocated for additional funding for MPB treatment, particularly 
around areas of critical infrastructure.  “The power line infrastructure disaster potential 
re-frames the bark beetle issue in the D.C. mind. Prior to this they just thought it was too 
bad for Colorado forests but now when whole regions could be affected, this enlarges the 
implications of the bark beetle issue” (Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, October 
2008). In 2009, a year after the epidemic peaked in Colorado, the CBBC was able to 
successfully lobby for the USFS to commit $30 million to address bark beetle in the 
Rocky Mountain region.  Additionally, the USFS directed Rick Cables, the Regional 
Forester for Forest Service Region 2 (which includes Colorado), to divert $10 million 
from the regional budget to spend on beetle issues. From January 2010 minutes: “Rick 
[Cables] has given the CBBC a lot of credit for getting the $40 million and has been a 
great advocate for CBBC” (Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, January 2010).     
After 2009 the CBBC continue to lobby the state and federal legislatures, particularly on 
issues of forest management and fire policy.  However, as the additional yearly damage 
from the beetle declined pressing for beetle related funding became more difficult, 
particular after 2012 when the bark beetle incident was declared officially over. 
Throughout the study period, the group engaged in advocacy at a number of 
different spatial scales, including briefing local, state and national politicians, and 
lobbying for the passage of beetle and forest related legislation at state and federal levels. 
As exemplified in this objective of November 2010 meeting to “bring in the newly 
elected officials up to speed, where the past politicians were,” the CBBC worked 
   34 
throughout the course of the epidemic to promote the group’s interests and vision to 
elected officials.  Advocacy for particular policies or pieces of legislation was typically 
directed towards state and federal officials, while municipal and county officials were 
involved to help inform what local concerns the CBBC should advocate for. For example, 
during the November 2015 Steering Committee Meeting:  
There was discussion about bringing the 9 CBBC counties to the table by 
developing more focused policy objectives. At the state level, we could 
focus on the WRRP [Wildfire Risk Reduction Program], and the FLAME 
[Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act] and 
PREPARE [Preparedness and Risk Management for Extreme Weather 
Patterns Assuring Resilience and Effectiveness] Acts at the federal level. 
The CBBC will work on bringing BOCC’s/managers to a spring meeting 
to agree on the important pieces of this legislation and how to best support 
them. 
 
While the CBBC struggled to continue to secure substantial MPB related funding 
after 2009, tracking and advocating for forest related legislation remained a core 
activity throughout the group’s history. 
The changing nature of the beetle epidemic affected both the CBBC’s primary 
activities and the group’s guiding vision. Following their success in lobbying for 
substantial funding for beetle mitigation in the region, the CBBC began discussing 
shifting their work away from beetle specific projects and towards issues of landscape 
ecology.  This is reflected in the addition of a fifth objective to the CBBC's list of 
organizational objectives in 2010: “the CBBC will develop and promote a vision for the 
short, mid, and long term high elevation forest landscape” (Steering Committee Meeting 
Minutes, November 2010).  Moving into 2010, with the acres of additional beetle damage 
decreasing, the CBBC grappled with questions of organizational scope, mission, and 
   35 
direction.  This discussion centered around shifting away from the group’s early heavy 
emphasis on hazards mitigation.  From the September 2010 Steering Committee Meeting: 
The CBBC seems to be moving towards larger landscape thinking, like 
wildlife issues, watershed restoration, recreation, etc. Currently the group 
is functioning on a mitigation basis. Maybe it’s time to look at that 
mission and make additions/changes. How long does the CBBC focus on 
bark beetle? 
 
As part of this shift in orientation from mitigation towards a more encompassing 
landscape oriented vision, the group identified the problem facing them as one of 
calculating which social problems (such as hazards facing infrastructure and property) 
would demand intervention in disturbed forests.  This is summed up in the November 
2010 Steering Committee Meeting: 
Where and when do social values trump ecological values?  There is not 
ecological justification for a “bunch of monkeying around in the forest” 
however there are social values that it is appropriate. Our task is to define 
where at the short, mid, long term social values trump ecological values. 
What social values are more important to us then allowing the forest to do 
what is has always done? 
 
As the additional yearly damage inflicted by the MPB began to decline in northwest 
Colorado, the CBBC debated continuing to focus exclusively on the beetle, versus 
reconstituting their mission to address forest health more broadly.  During the period 
from 2010 to 2013, the group engaged in repeated discussion of developing a vision for 
the "future forest" that could be used to communicate with the public, to prioritize 
treatment applications, and to generally shape the activities and priorities of the group.  
The discussion of northwest Colorado’s “future forest” became part of the work of the 
CBBC’s Vision Committee, which aimed to develop conceptual tools for optimizing 
social values, patterns of forest regrowth, and forest management interventions. From the 
July 2012 Steering Committee Meeting: 
   36 
“The Vision Committee’s work is predicated on the assumption that forest 
management resources will remain limited, requiring prioritization of 
treatments to optimize social benefits…It’s a dollar saved where the 
trajectory of naturally regenerating forests align with desired future 
conditions. Conversely, where regenerating forests appear to be on a 
trajectory in conflict with desired future conditions suggests where near 
term management actions should be investigated. Ultimately, this analysis 
will determine where on-the-ground forest management projects will be 
implemented to shape the future forest to meet desired conditions.”  
 
 
However, this future forest visioning was hampered by a lack of clarity on what 
the purpose and temporal range of such vision should be.  Even as the CBBC attempted 
to operationalize a vision for the future forest based on a trajectory of forest regeneration, 
there was some support within the CBBC for moving towards engaging more with the 
project of (human) community resilience. The debate between these two directions for 
the CBBC is evidenced in the Steering Committee Meeting from October 2012: 
There was a good deal of discussion about what exactly the Vision 
Group’s charge is: to develop a vision for what CBBC ought to be doing 
in the next 5-20 years, or, to articulate a vision for what the forest should 
look like in 100 years. Some suggested that the [CBBC] must first 
articulate a long-term vision for the forest before it can determine what 
CBBC ought to be doing in the near to mid-term. Others felt that the work 
plan laid before the group was the process of developing that vision 
through engagement with the community 
 
In 2014, in part because of this direction uncertainty and it part because of the sharp 
decline in MPB activity and the perception that the MPB epidemic as such was largely 
over, the CBBC debated sunsetting entirely.  This concern is reflected in the January 
2014 minutes, “After a productive early history with the crisis phase of the bark beetle 
epidemic, the CBBC has been struggling to find its next focus” (Steering Committee 
Meeting Minutes, January 2014).   However, the group decided to continue, and shift the 
mission away from the recent MPB epidemic specifically and towards future forest 
   37 
disturbance and community resilience in the CBBC operating area generally. In a 
facilitated visioning session that occurred at the beginning of 2014, the group defined 
their problem focus as “Inevitable and ongoing forest disturbances pose hazards to human 
communities embedded in forested environments and these hazards threaten community 
resiliency” (Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, January 2014). In this meeting, 
resilience was defined as “the capacity of a system to absorb and recover from a 
disturbance” (Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, January 2014).  The issue of 
resilience is framed as one of educating and preparing communities for inevitable future 
forest disturbance: “Disasters will occur, how ready are they [communities]? The beetle 
may be gone but the problem has not gone away. The general public does not understand 
the connection back to the forest” (Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, January 2014). 
In 2015 the CBBC began to formulate a position for a community resilience coordinator, 
to help communities in their area develop tools to become more resilient to forest 
disturbance.  In the context of this focus on community resilience, in the June 2015 
meeting, the group articulated their role as facilitating the following: 
• Assist communities and private industry in understanding their risks and hazards 
• Continue to be an advocacy group to the feds on topics related to wildfire and 
other related issues 
• Provide assistance to local governments (and other entities) as a clearinghouse for 
resources that are available to help them reach their goals, especially in the area of 
funding sources 
• Provide assistance through supporting letters for grants, etc.  
• Review CWPP’s [Community Wildfire Protection Plans] and make 
recommendations for updates, enhancements etc.  
This shift towards community resilience, while constituting a fairly substantial change in 
organizational direction for the CBBC, continued to draw on areas with which the group 
had been active and successful in for a long time, such as advocacy, and information 
sharing 
   38 
CHAPTER V 
DISCUSSION 
One of the key normative assumptions about collaborative governance 
arrangements, such as the Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative, is that such regimes 
possess a greater adaptive capacity (Folke et al., 2005; Lebel et al., 2006; Pahl-Wostl, 
2009).  Adaptive capacity can be defined as the ability of a system to “experiment and 
foster innovative solutions in complex social and ecological circumstances” (Armitage, 
2005). These results suggest that the CBBC has adapted its activities and organizational 
focus in response to the changing pattern of MPB damage and concurrent shifts in policy 
opportunities. Over time, the CBBC has been able to demonstrate some of the advantages 
of collaborative governance arrangements in promoting adaptive capacity, such as 
flexibility, diverse membership, and ability to operate across multiple scales.  However, 
the group has also faced some of the challenges typical to collaborative governance, such 
as difficultly moving from direction-setting to implementation, lack of monitoring 
mechanisms, and difficulty developing durable structures of implementation with key 
management bureaucracies.  
 
5.1 Membership, parent organizations and collaboration 
One of the ways in which the CBBC exhibited positive qualities associated with 
increased adaptive capacity was by the inclusion and representation of a broad range of 
stakeholders.  This diversity not only allowed the CBBC to serve as a clearinghouse of 
information from a variety of parent organizations, but also legitimized the CBBC's 
consensus making process around developing zones of agreement for where forest 
   39 
treatment should occur.  The CBBC was able to function in some ways as a bridging 
organization between private stakeholders, local government, state legislators, and state 
and federal land management agencies.  This function was crucial to the CBBC making 
connections to pursue policy agendas at the local, state, and federal levels, and allowed 
the CBBC to sensitize state and federal legislators to the CBBC's concerns while 
gathering input and concerns from local and municipal government.  This trend is part of 
what made the CBBC able to work flexibly across scales.   
However, while the CBBC was able to leverage its diverse set of stakeholders to 
adapt to changing social and ecological circumstances, the group also faced challenges in 
maintaining durable ties to key decision-making structures in land management 
bureaucracies.  This is reflected in the decline of consistent USFS personnel attendance 
after 2009 and related concerns about the ability of the CBBC to connect with forest 
supervisors.  While the USFS now includes collaboration into its process for forest 
management, the mechanism through which CBBC identified management priorities 
could translate into on the ground treatments was unclear.  This issue was compounded 
by a lack of monitoring capacity on the part of the CBBC for any of their activities, 
including treatment implementation. Monitoring has been identified as a key component 
of learning and accountability in collaborative governance arrangements, and a lack of 
robust monitoring protocols can hamper a group’s ability to adapt (Armitage, 2005; 
Cheng et al., 2015; Lebel et al., 2006). 
 
 
 
   40 
5.2 Area of operation 
The spatial analysis of the spread of MPB across Colorado shows that the CBBC 
operating area coincided with the initial epicenter of the outbreak in the state (Figures 3a 
and 3b).  One of the theorized mechanisms through which collaborative governance 
regimes increase adaptive capacity is by matching decision making and learning to 
appropriate social and ecological scales (Lebel et al., 2006).  While the CBBC seems to 
have encompassed an area of high MPB damage in Colorado, the group’s on-going 
debate on how to define the geographic area in which they operate suggests that matching 
the ecological and social concerns is not always straightforward.  While the political 
boundaries (counties) chosen by the CBBC to define their geographic scope do not 
necessarily correlate to ecological phenomena controlling the MPB outbreak, there group 
was clearly constrained by political and logistical reasons for this choice.  Additionally, 
the designation of the nine county operating area did not limit the CBBC in pursuing 
activities across scales and with implications outside of their own location.  
The ability to work flexibly across scales is another pattern in the activities of the 
CBBC that is characteristic of systems with higher adaptive capacity.  This is seen both in 
the multiple areas and scales at which the CBBC pursued projects and policy objectives, 
in the incorporation of diverse stakeholders from a range of spatial scales, and in the way 
that the CBBC was able to pivot their entire organizational vision from different scales 
across the history of the group.  Previous studies have shown that incorporating 
knowledge across scales and connecting actors at different scales can positively impact 
adaptive capacity (Pahl-Wostl, 2009).   
 
   41 
5.3 Activities and Organizational Direction 
While the CBBC was able to flexibly change their guiding vision with changes in 
the type and extent of MPB damage, the group also faced some difficultly in moving 
from a direction-setting phase to an implementation phase.  Collaborative organizations 
have been described as moving through phases of problem-setting, direction-setting and 
implementation, and previous studies have identified difficultly in moving from 
direction-setting to implementation as a key challenge presented to the success of 
collaborative governance (Cheng et al., 2015). Other studies have described this 
movement from problem setting, to direction setting, to implementation as cyclical rather 
than linear (Ansell & Gash, 2008), a trend which is exhibited by the CBBC.   Particularly 
after the peak in beetle activity, the CBBC experienced a period of cyclical direction 
setting, finally settling on a focus on community resilience at the end of the study period.   
Throughout this iterative direction setting, the response of the CBBC to the MPB 
outbreak was shaped by the way in which the group defined the problem of MPB 
disturbance.  Throughout each stage of the group’s development, the issue of MPB 
disturbance in Colorado forests has been framed as inevitable and unpreventable.  The 
result of this framing was a consistent focus on influencing or altering social systems, 
from federal legislation to community wildfire plans, rather than addressing potential 
underlying causes of the outbreak such as climate change.  This makes sense given the 
organizations scope, let alone the ability of a regional group such as the CBBC to affect 
such a complex problem as global climate change. 
 
 
   42 
5. 4 Limitations and directions for future study 
Because of the nature of the document data I employed, this study was able 
primarily to tease out trends in member inclusion and broad discussions of group vision 
and direction.  Because I was analyzing meeting minutes from the steering committee (as 
opposed to working groups, which met separately), the patterns I found relate more to the 
overarching organizational concerns and less to the nitty-gritty details of project 
implementation.  Another limitation of the steering committee meeting minutes as a data 
set was that, although it was possible to capture the diversity of attendees at these 
meetings, the minutes themselves were written in a summative way, which obscured 
individual voices and concerns within a discussion.  Additionally, more than collative 
connections to and from ecological processes on the landscape were difficult to draw 
given the constraints of my data.  Further research could employee a diversity of data 
sources and methods to tease out the connections between the CBBC’s organizational 
direction, implementation directives, and actual changes and treatment on the landscape.  
The CBBC exhibited facilitating and inhibiting characteristics with regards to 
adaptive capacity.  While the group faced challenges, particularly around organizational 
vision and direction as the MPB epidemic waned in intensity, this study suggests that the 
flexible, multi-scalar nature of the CBBC will allow for continued relevancy and 
adaptation as Colorado’s forests continue to change.   
 
  
   43 
CHAPTER VI 
CONCLUSION 
Collaborative multilevel governance arrangements such as the Colorado Bark 
Beetle Cooperative are an increasingly response for addressing complex environmental 
problems. Because of the increasing prevalence of such governance arrangements, it is 
crucial to understand the ways in which such arrangements adapt and change over time.  
This study has examined some of the challenges and benefits of collaborative 
arrangements in the context of a changing landscape of forest disturbance.  As societies 
continue to face complex socio-ecological problems that reach across spatial and political 
scales, understanding how collaborative governance regimes change in response to 
changes on the landscape can provide insight into the ability of such arrangements to 
respond nimbly and flexibly to environmental disturbances. 
 
  
   44 
APPENDIX A 
 
LIST OF ACRONYMS 
 
ADS Areal Detection Survey 
BLM Bureau of Land Management 
BOCC Board of County Commissioners 
CBBC Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative 
CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation 
CDOW Colorado Department of Wildlife 
CDPW, EM Colorado Department of Public Works, Emergency Management 
CFRI Colorado Forest Restoration Institute 
CSFS Colorado State Forest Service 
CSU Colorado State University 
DNR Department of Natural Resources 
FHAC Forest Health Advisory Council 
FHTF Forest Health Task Force 
FIA Forest Inventory and Analysis Program 
LPP ZOA Lodgepole Pine Zone of Agreement 
MPB Mountain Pine Beetle 
NFF National Forest Foundation 
NPS National Park Service 
NWCCOG Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 
USDA United States Department of Agriculture 
USFS United States Forest Service 
USGS United States Geological Survey 
WUI Wilderness Urban Interface 
 
  
   45 
APPENDIX B 
 
CODEBOOK 
 
Name Description 
Themes Topics of interest 
Biomass utilization Discussion of the use (e.g. sale, processing, marketing) of forest biomass, either from 
beetle-killed timber or from mitigation/treatment removed biomass 
Climate Change Discussion of climate change/ global warming 
Energy Discussion of issues related to energy and energy production (e.g. power lines).  
Fire Discussion of issues related to forest or wild land fire 
Forest Industry Discussion of forest products or timber industry 
Infrastructure Discussion of infrastructure, e.g. power lines, roads 
Hazards Discussion of hazards/ hazardous conditions resulting from fire or beetle-kill 
Resilience References to the concept of resilience, particularly ecological resilience. Used mostly 
to mean the ability of a system to recover from disturbance, sometimes used to denote 
the ability of a system to resist change/disturbance 
Treatment and Mitigation Discussion of issues related to treatment of forests to reduce the impact of disturbance 
or prevent /reduce the likelihood of future disturbance, 
 Thinning: Selectively removing trees from a forest 
 Restoration: Activities designed to return an ecosystem to a pre-disturbance state 
 Pheromones: Pheromone traps which are meant to capture mountain pine beetles 
 Mitigation: Activities designed to reduce the severity or impact of disturbance 
 Clear-cutting: Cutting down large areas of trees 
Vulnerability References to the concept of vulnerability, a measure of how susceptible a system is 
to harm or disturbance 
Water Quality Discussion of issues relating to water quality & watershed  
Wildlife Discussion of issues related to wildlife or wildlife conservation 
WUI Wild land-Urban Interface:  The term refers generally to areas where human 
habitation or development abuts or intermingles with wild or uninhabited areas.  
Activities Activities undertaken or discussed by the CBBC 
Research Activities related to designing and conducting research 
 Monitoring: Research related to ecological monitoring 
 Mapping: Research related to GIS analysis and mapping 
Partner Organizations Catch all for reference to activities of any non-CBBC organizations 
Outreach Activities related to public outreach and education 
 Tools: Outreach related to the development and distribution of tools for community 
use (could be maps, data products, methods of evaluation) 
 Field Trips: CBBC member visits to field sites or communities of interest 
 Education: Outreach related to the creation, dissemination, or implementation of 
educational materials or workshops 
 Conferences & Meetings: CBBC attendance at conferences or meetings 
 Bridging: Activities related to bridging between government agencies, research 
institutions, and the public 
   46 
Internal Activities Activities related to the internal operation of the CBBC 
 Mission & Vision: Activities related to the formation, articulation and dissemination 
of the CBBC mission and vision 
 Membership & Roles: Activities related to group membership, participating 
organizations, and group roles and positions 
 Budget & Funding: Activities related to budgeting, fundraising, and funding 
Advocacy Activities related to lobbying and advocacy at local, state or national levels 
 Farm Bill: Advocacy related to the Farm Bill 
Misc. Uncategorized nodes 
WBBS & BBI Western Bark Beetle Strategy and Bark Beetle Incident.  The BBI management 
organization was put in place in 2007 for the Rock Mountain Region.  USFS Chief 
directed the development of the WBBS in 2009 to be a regional strategy for dealing 
with the bark beetle epidemic  
FHAC Forest Health Advisory Council. Created by Governor Ritter in 2008 "for the purpose 
of bringing together relevant state and federal agencies, local government 
representatives and key stakeholders to identify short term action that will improve 
Colorado's approach to forest heath and to develop and implement a long term 
strategy for sustaining the state's ...forest resources" - EO B00408 
 
  
   47 
APPENDIX C 
CBBC PARTIPANT LIST 
Name Affiliation Organization Type 
Abbie Cobb NWCCOG Government 
Alan Hanson Summit County Planning Dept Government 
Allen Bacher Colorado Mountain College Academic/Scientific 
Alton Scales Colorado Mountain College Academic/Scientific 
Amanda Bucknam CSFS Land Manager 
Beth Huron CSU Extension Academic/Scientific 
Bill Jackson USFS Land Manager 
Bjorn Dahl Dahl Environmental Services Private 
Bob Sturtevant CSFS Land Manager 
Brad Piehl JW Associates Private 
Bruce Ward Choose Outdoors Environmental/Recreation 
Bryan Martin Colorado Mountain Club Environmental/Recreation 
Buck Sanchez USFS Land Manager 
Cal Wettstein USFS Land Manager 
Carina Wyborn University of Montana Academic/Scientific 
Carl Spaulding Renewable Fiber Inc Wood Products 
Caroline Byus Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Government 
Cary Green USFS Land Manager 
Casey Cooley Division of Parks and Wildlife Government 
Charlie Henry Private Forest Land Owners Private 
Chris Dahl NPS Land Manager 
Christine Scanlan CO Legislature Government 
Chuck Dennis CSFS Land Manager 
Chuck Vale CDPS, EM Government 
Clint Kyhl USFS Land Manager 
Craig Magwire USFS Land Manager 
Dan Gibbs Summit County BOCC Government 
Dan Schroder CSU Extension Academic/Scientific 
David Wheeler USFS Land Manager 
Don Carroll USFS Land Manager 
Don Kennedy Denver Water Utility 
Drew Hoehn RWB Fire District Government 
Gary Severson NWCCOG Government 
Glenn Casamassa USFS Land Manager 
Gloria Jones CDOT Government 
Grete Gansauer CO Wildlife Federation Environmental/Recreation 
Heather Provencio USFS Land Manager 
Howard Hallman FHTF Environmental/Recreation 
   48 
Ian Lyle Representative Scott Tipton Government 
Jack Taylor Private Citizen Private 
Jackie Parks USFS Land Manager 
Jan Burke USFS Land Manager 
Jan Cutts USFS Land Manager 
Jan Hackett CSFS Land Manager 
Jason Browne Xcel Energy Utility 
Jeff Kitchens BLM Land Manager 
Jeff Witcosky USFS Land Manager 
Jennifer Scott Grand County DNR Government 
Jerry Andrew Lake County Forest Health Task Force Environmental/Recreation 
Jerry Otero Senator Udall Government 
Jessica Clement CFRI Academic/Scientific 
Jill Ozarski Senator Udall Government 
Jim Webb Private Forestry Consultant Private 
Joani Matrenga CO Energy Office Government 
Joe Duda CSFS Land Manager 
Joe Pandy Mountain Parks Electric Utility 
John Burke Blue Knight Group Wood Products 
John Dickinson Ecowood Sales Wood Products 
John Mack NPS Land Manager 
John Rich Jackson County BOCC Government 
John Ring BLM Land Manager 
June Walters NWCCOG Government 
Kate Jerman USFS Land Manager 
Katherine Timm CSFS Land Manager 
Kim Scott RWB Fire District Government 
Kristen Pelz CFRI Academic/Scientific 
Liz Lile USGS Government 
Liz Mullen NWCCOG Government 
Lyle Laverty The Laverty Group Private 
Marcus Selig NFF Environmental/Recreation 
Mark Mathis Confluence Energy Utility 
Martha Delporte USFS Land Manager 
Mary Ann Chambers USFS Land Manager 
Mary Chapman Private Landowner Private 
Mary Mitsos NFF Environmental/Recreation 
Matt Sugar NWCCOG Government 
Matt Tansey CSFS Land Manager 
Matt Thompson Town of Breckenridge Government 
Meridian Taussig CSFS Land Manager 
Michael  Swenson Swenson Communications Private 
Michael  Wasgott Philips & Jordan, Inc. Private 
   49 
Michael Stantiers Prodigy Private 
Mike Babler The Nature Conservancy Environmental/Recreation 
Mike Eckhoff CSFS Land Manager 
Mike Jolovich Ranch Creek Ltd Private 
Mike Lester CSFS Land Manager 
Mike McHugh City of Aurora Government 
Nancy Fishering Colorado Timber Industry Association Wood Products 
Nate Williamson NPS Land Manager 
Nissa Erickson Representative Polis Government 
Noah Koerper Senator Bennet Government 
Paige  Blankenbuehler Summit Daily News Media 
Pam Caskie NWCCOG Government 
Pam Motley West Range Reclamation Wood Products 
Patti Clapper Pitkin County BOCC Government 
Patti McGuire Private Consultant Private 
Paul Evangelista CSU Academic/Scientific 
Peech Keller USFS Land Manager 
Peter  Runyon Eagle County BOCC Government 
Peter Grosshuesch Town of Breckenridge Government 
Phil  Cruz USFS Land Manager 
Rachel Lunney NWCCOG Government 
Randy Piper GreenWay, LLC Wood Products 
RE Vann USFS Land Manager 
Rich Cooksey USFS Land Manager 
Rich Dziomba Blue Knight Group Wood Products 
Rich Edwards CSFS Land Manager 
Rob Davis Forest Energy Corporation Wood Products 
Robert Post USFS Land Manager 
Ron Cousineau CSFS Land Manager 
Ron Turley WAPA Utility 
Ronnie Jordan Philips & Jordan, Inc. Private 
Rusty Collins CSU Extension Academic/Scientific 
Sally Edwards Xcel Energy Utility 
Sandy  Briggs FHTF Environmental/Recreation 
Sara Duncan Denver Water Utility 
Scott Fitzwilliams USFS Land Manager 
Shane Briggs CDOW Government 
Shanna Koenig Camuso NWCCOG Government 
Sloan Shoemaker Wilderness Workshop Environmental/Recreation 
Steve Johnson Global Loggers Wood Products 
Steven DeWitt The Lodgedpole Project Media 
Suzanne Oneill CO Wildlife Federation Environmental/Recreation 
Ted Wang NWCCOG Government 
   50 
Terry Hamm Xcel Energy Utility 
Tim Reader CSFS Land Manager 
Tim Seeling Grant writer Private 
Todd Hagenbuch Senator Bennet Government 
Tom  Clark Town of Kremmling Government 
Tom  Upsler CDOW Government 
Tom Adamson BLM Land Manager 
Tom Fry The Wilderness Society Environmental/Recreation 
Tom Nesler CDOW Government 
Tony Cheng CFRI Academic/Scientific 
Tony Vorster CSU Academic/Scientific 
Trudy Kareus Senator Bennet Government 
Vince White-Petterutti VWP (Consultant) Private 
Wendy Jo Haskins USFS Land Manager 
  
   51 
REFERENCES CITED 
Adams, et al. (2010). Climate-­‐induced tree mortality: Earth system consequences. Eos, 
91(17), 2010.  
Allen, C. D., et al. (2010). A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality 
reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 
259(4), 660–684. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.001 
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal 
of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. 
doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032 
Armitage, D. (2005). Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource 
management. Environmental Management, 35(6), 703–715. doi:10.1007/s00267-
004-0076-z 
Aukema, B. H., et al. (2006). Landscape level analysis of mountain pine beetle in British 
Columbia , Canada  : Spatiotemporal development and spatial synchrony within the 
present outbreak. Ecography, 29(3), 427–441. 
Bauer, A., & Steurer, R. (2014). Multi-level governance of climate change adaptation 
through regional partnerships in Canada and England. Geoforum, 51, 121–129. 
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.10.006 
Bentz, B. J., et al. (2010). Climate change and bark beetles of the Western United States 
and Canada: Direct and indirect effects. BioScience, 60(8), 602–613. 
doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.6 
Chapman, T. B., Veblen, T. T., & Schoennagel, T. (2012). Spatiotemporal patterns of 
mountain pine beetle activity in the southern Rocky Mountains. The Ecological 
Society of America, 93(10), 2175–2185. 
Chen, H. (2014). A spatiotemporal pattern analysis of historical mountain pine beetle 
outbreaks in British Columbia, Canada. Ecography, 37(4), 344–356. 
doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00470.x 
Cheng, A. S., Gerlak, A. K., Dale, L., & Mattor, K. (2015). Examining the adaptability of 
collaborative governance associated with publicly managed ecosystems over time: 
Insights from the front range roundtable, Colorado, USA. Ecology and Society, 
20(1). doi:10.5751/ES-07187-200135 
Dale, V., et al. (2001). Climate change and forest disturbances. BioScience, 51(9), 723–
734. 
   52 
Davis, E. J., & Reed, M. G. (2013). Multi-level governance of British Columbia’s 
mountain pine beetle crisis: The roles of memory and identity. Geoforum, 47, 32–41. 
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.02.005 
Flint, C. G. (2013). Conservation Connecting Multiple Scales of Place. Stewart, W., D. 
Williams, and L. Kruger (Ed.), Place-Based Conservation: Perspectives from the 
Social Sciences (pp. 35–44). Springer Science and Business Media. 
Flint, C. G., & Luloff,  A. E. (2005). Natural resource-based communities, risk, and 
disaster: An intersection of theories. Society & Natural Resources, 18(5), 399–412. 
doi:10.1080/08941920590924747 
Flint, C. G., B. McFarlane, & M. Müller (2009). Human dimensions of forest disturbance 
by insects: An international synthesis. Environmental Management, 43(6), 1174–
1186. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9193-4 
Flint, C., H. Qin, & J.P Ganning (2012). Linking local perceptions to the biophysical and 
amenity contexts of forest disturbance in colorado. Environmental Management, 
49(3), 553–569. doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9802-5 
Folke, Carl, Per Olsson, Jon Norberg, & Thomas Hahn. (2005). Adaptive Governance of 
Social-Ecological Systems. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511 
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological 
systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267. 
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002 
Gerlak, A. K., & T. Heikkila (2011). Building a theory of learning in collaboratives: 
Evidence from the everglades restoration program. Journal of Public Administration 
Research and Theory, 21(4), 619–644. doi:10.1093/jopart/muq089 
Gillette, N. E., et al. (2014). The Once and Future Forest: Consequences of Mountain 
Pine Beetle Treatment Decisions. Forest Science, 60(June), 527–538. 
Goetz, S. J., et al. (2012). Observations and assessment of forest carbon dynamics 
following disturbance in North America. Journal of Geophysical Research: 
Biogeosciences, 117(G2), n/a–n/a. doi:10.1029/2011JG001733 
Hart, S. J., et al. (2015). Area burned in the western United States is unaffected by recent 
mountain pine beetle outbreaks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 
112 (14 ), 4375–4380. doi:10.1073/pnas.1424037112 
Hicke, J. A., et al. (2012). Effects of biotic disturbances on forest carbon cycling in the 
United States and Canada. Global Change Biology, 18(1), 7–34. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2011.02543.x 
   53 
Jenkins, M. J., Hebertson, E., Page, W., & Jorgensen, C. A. (2008). Bark beetles, fuels, 
fires and implications for forest management in the Intermountain West. Forest 
Ecology and Management, 254(1), 16–34. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.09.045 
Kooistra, C. M., & Hall, T. E. (2014). Understanding Public Support for Forest 
Management and Economic Development Beetle Outbreak, 112(March), 221–229. 
Lebel, L., Anderies, J. M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S. H., Hughes, T. P., 
& Wilson, J. (2006). Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in 
Regional Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1). 
Lindner, M., et al. (2010). Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability 
of European forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(4), 698–709. 
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.023 
McCarthy, J. (2005). Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid 
neoliberalism. Environment and Planning A, 37(6), 995–1014. doi:10.1068/a36266 
Nelson, M. D., Likness, G. C., & Butler, B. J. (2010). Forest ownership in the 
conterminous United States: ForestOwn_v1 geospatial dataset. Newtown Square, 
PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological 
systems. Science (New York, N.Y.), 325(5939), 419–22. 
doi:10.1126/science.1172133 
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and 
multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global 
Environmental Change, 19(3), 354–365. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001 
Parkins, J. R. (2008). The metagovernance of climate change: Institutional adaptation to 
the mountain pine beetle epidemic in British Columbia. Journal of Rural and 
Community Development, 3(2), 7–26. Retrieved from 
http://jrcd.ca/include/getdoc.php?id=347&article=109&mode=pdf 
Qin, H., Flint, C. G., & Luloff, A. E. (2015). Tracing temporal changes in the human 
dimensions of forest insect disturbance on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Human 
Ecology, 43(1), 43–59. doi:10.1007/s10745-014-9717-x 
Raffa, K., et al. (2008). Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to 
anthropogenic amplification: the dynamics of bark beetle eruptions. BioScience, 
58(6), 501–517. Retrieved from 
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/6/501.short 
Seidl, R., & Lexer, M. (2013). Forest management under climatic and social uncertainty: 
   54 
trade-offs between reducing climate change impacts and fostering adaptive capacity. 
Journal of Environmental Management, 114(0), 461–469. 
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.028 
Six, D., Biber, E., & Long, E. (2014). Management for mountain pine beetle outbreak 
suppression: Does relevant science support current policy? Forests, 5(1), 103–133. 
doi:10.3390/f5010103 
Tompkins, E. L., & Adger, W. N. (2004). Does adaptive management of natural 
resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecology and Society, 9(2). 
USDA Forest Service Region 2, Forest and Grassland Health.  Aerial Detection Survey 
1997 - 2014.  
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience , 
adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 
9(2). 
Walker, P. A., & Hurley, P. T. (2004). Collaboration derailed: The politics of 
“community-based” resource management in Nevada County. Society & Natural 
Resources, 17(March), 735–751. doi:10.1080/08941920490480723 
Williams, A. P., Allen, C. D., Millar, C. I., Swetnam, T. W., Michaelsen, J., Still, C. J., & 
Leavitt, S. W. (2010). Forest responses to increasing aridity and warmth in the 
southwestern United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 
United States of America, 107(50), 21289–94. doi:10.1073/pnas.0914211107