Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Adaptive capacity in social–ecological systems: a framework for addressing bark beetle disturbances in natural resource management

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sustainability Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ability of natural resource agencies to act before, during, and after outbreaks of conifer bark beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) is important to ensure the continued provision of ecosystem services. Adaptive capacity refers to the capability of an agent or system to adapt to change, regardless of whether it is examined as an independent social or ecological entity, or as a coupled social–ecological system. Understanding the components of a disturbance and the associated effects to ecosystem services, social systems, and natural resource management increases the ability to adapt to change and ensure continued resilience. This paper presents a definition and conceptual framework of adaptive capacity relevant to bark beetle disturbances that was developed through an interdisciplinary workshop held in 2016. The intent is to assist natural resource managers and policy-makers in identifying important adaptation characteristics to effectively address bark beetle disturbances. The current state of knowledge regarding institutional, social, and environmental factors that influence adaptive capacity are identified. The mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) in the western USA is used as a specific example to discuss several factors that influence adaptive capacity for increasing resilience. We hope that our proposed framework serves as a model for future collaborations among both social and physical scientists and land managers to better address landscape-level disturbances that are being exacerbated by climate change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

(adapted from Cutter et al. 2008; Gallopin 2006; Hinkel 2010; Hopkins 2014; Palmer et al. 2014; Phillips 2014)

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrams J, Huber-Stearns H, Palmerin ML et al (2018) Does policy respond to environmental change events? An analysis of mountain pine beetle outbreaks in the western United States. Environ Sci Policy 90:102–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adger WN, Brooks N, Bentham G, Agnew M, Eriksen S, Adger WN, Brooks N, Kelly M, Bentham G (2004) New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Tech Rep 7. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich, p 122

  • Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environ Change 15:77–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M et al (2009) Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim Change 93:335–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage D (2005) Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environ Manage 35(6):703–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennet NJ, Blythe J, Tyler S, Ban NC (2015) Communities and change in the Anthropocene: understanding social-ecological vulnerability and planning adaptations to multiple interacting exposures. Reg Environ Change 16(4):907–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentz BJ, Régnière J, Fettig CJ et al (2010) Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and Canada: direct and indirect effects. Bioscience 60:602–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentz BJ, Jönsson AM, Schroeder M, Weed A, Wilcke RAI, Larsson K (2019) Ips typographus and Dendroctonus ponderosae models project thermal suitability for intra-and inter-continental establishment in a changing climate. Front Global Change. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beudert B, Bässler C, Thorn S, Noss R, Schröder B, Dieffenbach-Fries H, Fullois N, Müller J (2015) Bark beetles increase biodiversity while maintaining drinking water quality. Conserv Lett 8(4):272–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackman MW (1931) The Black Hills beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopk.). Tech Pub 36. The New York State College of Forestry, Syracuse

    Google Scholar 

  • Boag AE, Hartter JN, Hamilton LC, Stevens FR, Ducey MJ, Palace MW, Christoffersen ND, Oester PT (2015) Forest views: shifting attitudes toward the environment in northeast Oregon. The Carsey School of Public Policy at the Scholars’ Repository 238, p 10

  • Bogdanski B, Sun L, Peter B, Stennes B (2011) Markets for forest products following a large disturbance: Opportunities and challenges from the mountain pine beetle outbreak in Western Canada. Report BC-X-429. Canada Forest Services, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, p 68. http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/32226.pdf

  • Boyd IL, Freer-Smith PH, Gilligan CA, Godfray HCJ (2013) The consequence of tree pests and diseases for ecosystem services. Science 342(6160):1235773

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks N (2003) Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual framework. Working Paper 38, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich, pp 1–6

  • Brooks N, Adger WN, Kelly PM (2005) The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global Environ Change 15:151–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapin FS, Kofinas GP, Folke C, Chapin MC (2009) Principles of ecosystem stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen M, Sun F, Berry P, Tinch R, Ju H, Lin E et al (2014) Integrated assessment of China’s adaptive capacity to climate change with a capital approach. Clim Change 128(3–4):367–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarvis MH, Engle NL (2015) Adaptive capacity of water governance arrangements: a comparative study of barriers and opportunities in Swiss and US states. Reg Environ Change 15(3):517–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement JM, Cheng AS (2011) Using analyses of public value orientations, attitudes and preferences to inform national forest planning in Colorado and Wyoming. Appl Geog 31:393–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clow DW, Rhoades C, Briggs J, Caldwell M, Lewis WM Jr (2011) Responses of soil and water chemistry to mountain pine beetle induced tree mortality in Grand County, Colorado, USA. Appl Geochem 26:S174–S178

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Costello SL, Schaupp WC (2011) First Nebraska state collection record of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Coleopt Bull 65:21–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cudmore TJ, Björklund N, Carroll AL et al (2010) Climate change and range expansion of an aggressive bark beetle: evidence of higher beetle reproduction in naive host tree populations. J Appl Ecol 47:1036–1043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullingham CL, Cooke JE, Dang S et al (2011) Mountain pine beetle host-range expansion threatens the boreal forest. Mol Ecol 20:2157–2171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutter SL, Barnes L, Berry M et al (2008) A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environ Change 18:598–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davídková M, Doležal P (2017) Sister broods in the spruce bark beetle, Ips typographus (L.). For Ecol Manage 405:13–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DellaSala DA, Martin A, Spivak R et al (2003) A citizen’s call for ecological forest restoration: forest restoration principles and criteria. Ecol Rest 21:14–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the common. Science 302:1907–1912

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Edburg SL, Hicke JA, Brooks PD, Pendall EG, Ewers BE, Norton U, Meddens AJ (2012) Cascading impacts of bark beetle-caused tree mortality on coupled biogeophysical and biogeochemical processes. Front Ecol Environ 10(8):416–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle NL (2011) Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environ Change 21:647–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle NL, Lemos MC (2010) Unpacking governance: building adaptive capacity to climate change of river basins in Brazil. Global Environ Change 20:4–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ensor J, Park S, Hoddy E, Ratner B (2015) A rights-based perspective on adaptive capacity. Global Environ Change 31:38–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fankhauser S, Smith JB, Tol RSJ (1999) Weathering climate change: some simple rules to guide adaptation decisions. Ecol Econ 30:67–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feenstra JF, Burton I, Smith JB, Tol RSL (1998) Handbook on methods for climate change impact assessment and adaptation strategies. UNEP/Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Fettig CJ (2019) Socioecological impacts of the western pine beetle outbreak in southern California: lessons for the future. J For 117:138–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Fettig CJ, Klepzig KD, Billings RF et al (2007) The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. For Ecol Manage 238:24–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fettig CJ, Gibson KE, Munson AS, Negrón JF (2014) Cultural practices for prevention and mitigation of mountain pine beetle infestations. For Sci 60:450–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Fettig CJ, Mortenson LA, Bulaon BM, Foulk PB (2019) Tree mortality following drought in the central and southern Sierra Nevada, California, US. For Ecol Manage 432:164–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flint CG, McFarlane B, Müller M (2009) Human dimensions of forest disturbance by insects: an international synthesis. Environ Manage 43:1174–1186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environ Change 16:253–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ann Rev Environ Res 30:441–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford J, Smit B (2004) A framework for assessing the vulnerability of communities in the Canadian Arctic to risks associated with climate change. Arctic 57:389–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franceschi VR, Krokene P, Christiansen E, Krekling T (2005) Anatomical and chemical defenses of conifer bark against bark beetles and other pests. New Phytol 167:353–376

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gallopín GC (2006) Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environ Change 16:293–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillette NE, Wood DL, Hines SJ et al (2014) The once and future forest: consequences of mountain pine beetle treatment decisions. For Sci 60:527–538

    Google Scholar 

  • Gittell RJ, Vidal A (1998) Community organizing: building social capital as a development strategy. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg J (2002) Managing behavior in organizations, 3rd edn. Pearson Education Inc, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta J, Termeer C, Klostermann J et al (2010) The adaptive capacity wheel: a method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environ Sci Policy 13:459–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen WD, Naughton HT (2013) The effects of a spruce bark beetle outbreak and wildfires on property values in the wildland-urban interface of south-central, Alaska, USA. Ecol Econ 96:141–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicke JA, Meddens AJH, Kolden CA (2016) Recent tree mortality in the western United States from bark beetles and forest fires. For Sci 62:141–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill M, Engle NL (2012) Adaptive capacity: tensions across Scales. Environ Pol Govern 23(3):177–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill M, Engle NL (2013) Adaptive capacity: tensions across scales. Env Pol Gov 23:177–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkel J (2010) “Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity”: towards a clarification of the science–policy interface. Global Environ Change 21:198–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth JR, Wójcik D (2016) An evolutionary approach to adaptive capacity assessment: a case study of Soufriere, Saint Lucia. Sustainability 8:228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins D (2014) Applying a comprehensive contextual climate change vulnerability framework to New Zealand’s tourism industry. Ambio 44:110–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber R, Rigling A, Bebi P et al (2013) Sustainable land use in mountain regions under global change: synthesis across scales and disciplines. Ecol Scol 18:36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones ES, Taylor CP (2005) Litigating agency change: the impact of the courts and administrative appeals process on the Forest Service. Policy Stud J 23:310–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keegan CE, Sorenson CB, Morgan TA et al (2011) Impact of the great recession and housing collapse on the forest products industry in the western United States. For Prod J 61:625–634

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly PM, Adger WN (2000) Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change and facilitating adaptation. Clim Change 4:325–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keskitalo ECH (2004) A framework for multi-level stakeholder studies in response to global change. Local Environ 9:425–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keskitalo ECH, Pettersson M, Ambjörnsson EL, Davis EJ (2016) Agenda-setting and framing of policy solutions for forest pests in Canada and Sweden: avoiding beetle outbreaks? For Policy Econ 65:59–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky M, Milman A, Vicuña S (2012) Climate and water: knowledge of impacts to action on adaptation. Ann Rev Environ Resour 37:163–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb TE, Fettig CJ, Ayres MP et al (2016) Observed and anticipated impacts of drought on forests insects and diseases in the United States. For Ecol Manage 380:321–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurz WA, Dymond CC, Stinson G, Rampley GJ, Neilson ET, Carroll AL, Safranyik L (2008) Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature 452(7190):987

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lamothe KA, Sutherland IJ (2018) Intermediate ecosystem services: the origin and meanings behind an unsettled concept. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 14(1):179–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindner M, Maroschek M, Netherer S (2010) Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. For Ecol Manage 259:698–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzoni I, Nicholson-Cole S, Whitmarsh L (2007) Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environ Change 17:445–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire DY, James PM, Buddle CM, Bennett EM (2015) Landscape connectivity and insect herbivory: a framework for understanding tradeoffs among ecosystem services. Global Ecol Conserv 4:73–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marini L, Økland B, Jönsson A et al (2017) Climate drivers of bark beetle outbreak dynamics in Norway spruce forests. Ecography 40:1426–1435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall NA, Smajgl A (2013) Understanding variability in adaptive capacity on rangelands. Rangeland Ecol Manage 66:88–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin K, Norris A, Drever M (2006) Effects of bark beetle outbreaks on avian biodiversity in the British Columbia interior: implications for critical habitat management. BC J Ecosyst Manag 7(3):10–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattor KM, Cottrell SP, Stednick JD, Dickenson ERV, Czaja MR (2018) The effects of mountain pine beetle on drinking water: Effective communication strategies and knowledge transfer in the Rocky Mountain Region. In: Urquhart J, Potter C, Marzano M (eds) Human dimensions of forest health. Palgrave-Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattson WJ Jr, Addy ND (1975) Phytophagous insects as regulators of forest primary production. Science 90:515–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarlane BL, Stumpf-Allen RCG, Watson DO (2006) Public perceptions of natural disturbance in Canada’s national parks: the case of the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins). Biol Conserv 130:340–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarlane BL, Parkins JR, Romanowski S (2016) Expert perceptions of media reporting on a large-scale environmental risk issue: insights from mountain pine beetle management in Alberta, Canada. Can J For Res 46:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrady P, Cottrell S, Raadik Cottrell J et al (2016) Local perceptions of mountain pine beetle infestation, forest management, and connection to national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Human Ecol 44:185–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIver CP, Meek JP, Scudder MG, Sorenson CB, Morgan TA, Christensen GA (2015) California’s forest products industry and timber harvest, 2012. Gen. Tech. Rep 908, PNW-GTR-908. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, p 49

  • Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) (2010) Montana statewide forest resource strategy. The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, p 34. http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/forestry/docs/assistance/saresponsestrategy2010.pdf

  • Morgan TA, Keegan CE, Hayes SW, Sorenson CB (2013) Montana’s forest products industry: improved conditions but low expectations. For Prod Outlook 2013:29–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris JL, Cottrell S, Fettig CJ et al (2017) Managing bark beetle impacts on ecosystems and society: priority questions to motivate future research. J Appl Ecol 54:750–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris JL, Cottrell S, Fettig CJ et al (2018) Bark beetles as agents of change in social-ecological systems. Front Ecol Environ 16(S1):S34–S43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser SC, Ekstrom JA (2010) A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. PNAS 107:22026–22031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natural Resources Canada (2013) Mountain pine beetle (factsheet). http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/fire-insects-disturbances/top-insects/13397

  • Negrón JF, Fettig CJ (2014) Mountain pine beetle, a major disturbance agent in US western coniferous forests: a synthesis of the state of knowledge. For Sci 60:409–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Negrón JF, Bentz BJ, Fettig CJ et al (2008) USDA Forest Service bark beetle research in the western United States: looking towards the future. J For 106:325–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson HW, Williamson TB, Macaulay C, Mahony C (2015) Assessing the potential for forest management practitioner participation in climate change adaptation. For Ecol Manage 360:388–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netherer S, Matthews B, Katzensteiner K et al (2015) Do water-limiting conditions predispose Norway spruce to bark beetle attack? New Phytol 205:1128–1141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien K, Leichenko R, Kelkar U et al (2004a) Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and globalization in India. Global Environ Change 14:303–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien K, Erikson SEH, Schjolden A, Nygaard LP (2004b) What’s in a word? Conflicting interpretations of vulnerability in climate change research. CICERO Working Paper 2004:04, Oslo, p 16

  • Oswalt SN, Smith BW (2014) U.S. forest resource facts and historical trends. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, p 62. https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf

  • Pahl-Wostl C (2009) A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environ Change 19:354–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer S, Martin D, Delauer V, Rogan J (2014) Vulnerability and adaptive capacity in response to the Asian longhorned beetle infestation in Worcester, Massachusetts. Human Ecol 42:965–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP et al (2007) Technical summary. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelling M, High C (2005) Understanding adaptation: what can social capital offer assessments of adaptive capacity? Global Environ Change 15:308–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen B, Stuart D (2014) Explanations of a changing landscape: a critical examination of the British Columbia bark beetle epidemic. Environ Plan A 46:598–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips H (2014) The capacity to adapt to climate change at heritage sites—the development of a conceptual framework. Environ Sci Policy 47:118–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pielke R (1998) Rethinking the role of adaptation in climate policy. Global Environ Change 8:159–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Progar RA, Gillette N, Fettig CJ, Hrinkevich K (2014) Applied chemical ecology of the mountain pine beetle. For Sci 60:414–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner S, Malone EL (2001) Climate change, poverty, and intergenerational equity: the national level. Intl J Global Issues 1:175–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribe RG (1989) The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference research taught us? Environ Manage 13(1):55–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberger RS, Bell LA, Champ PA, White EM (2013) Estimating the economic value of recreation losses in Rocky Mountain National Park due to a mountain pine beetle outbreak. Western Economics Forum 12(1837-2016-151843):31–39

  • Safranyik L, Wilson WR (2007) The mountain pine beetle—a synthesis of biology, management, and impacts on lodgepole pine. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson D (2000) Cities, disasters and livelihoods. Risk Manage Intl J 2:49–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelhaas M-J, Nabuurs G-J, Schuck A (2003) Natural disturbances in the European forests in the 19th and 20th centuries. Global Change Biol 9:1620–1633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholtz RW, Blumer YB, Brand FS (2010) Risk, vulnerability, robustness, and resilience from a decision-theoretic perspective. J Risk Res 15(3):313–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schowalter TD (1981) Insect herbivore relationship to the state of the host plant: biotic regulation of ecosystem nutrient cycling through ecological succession. Oikos 37:126–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scudder M, Venn T, Morgan TA (2014) Can Montana participate in the lumber export market to China? For Prod J 64:11–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidl R, Lexer MJ (2013) Forest management under climatic and social uncertainty: trade-offs between reducing climate change impacts and fostering adaptive capacity. J Environ Manage 114:461–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidl R, Aggestam F, Rammer W et al (2015) The sensitivity of current and future forest managers to climate-induced changes in ecological processes. Ambio 45:430–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidl R, Spies TA, Peterson DL, Stephens SL, Hicke JA (2016) Searching for resilience: addressing the impacts of changing disturbance regimes on forest ecosystem services. J Appl Ecol 53(1):120–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidl R, Thom D, Kautz M et al (2017) Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat Clim Change 7:395–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seybold SJ, Bentz BJ, Fettig CJ et al (2018) Management of western North American bark beetles with semiochemicals. Ann Rev Entomol 63:407–432

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smit B, Pilifosova O (2003) From adaptation to adaptive capacity and vulnerability reduction. In: Smith JB, Kein RJT, Huq S (eds) Climate change, adaptive capacity and development. Imperial College Press, London

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environ Change 16:282–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smit B, Burton I, Klein R, Wandel J (2000) An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. Clim Change 45:223–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith B, Ragland SE, Pitts GJ (1998) A process for evaluating anticipatory adaptation measures for climate change. Water Air Soil Pollut 92:229–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens SL, Collins BM, Fettig CJ et al (2018) Drought, tree mortality, and wildfire in forests adapted to frequent fire. Bioscience 68:77–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Veen A, Logtmeijer C (2005) Economic hotspots: visualizing vulnerability to flooding. Nat Hazards 36:65–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vásquez-León M, West CT, Finan TJ (2003) A comparative assessment of climate vulnerability: agriculture and ranching on both sides of the US–Mexico border. Global Environ Change 13:159–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu T, Kim Y-S, Hurteau MD (2011) Investing in natural capital: using economic incentives to overcome barriers to forest restoration. Res Ecol 19:441–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyborn C, Yung L, Murphy D, Williams DR (2015) Situating adaptation: how governance challenges and perceptions of uncertainty influence adaptation in the Rocky Mountains Regional. Environ Change 15:669–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yohe G, Tol RS (2002) Indicators for social and economic coping capacity—moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environ Change 12:25–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The workshop was funded by the Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University; the Mountain Social-Ecological Observation Network (DEB-1231233); and partially by the National Science Foundation Grant Award WSC #1204460.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Stuart Cottrell, Marissa Rotar & Ryan Roberts

  2. Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Katherine M. Mattor, Zach Wurtzebach & Yu Wei

  3. Department of Geography, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Jesse L. Morris & Andrea Brunelle

  4. Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Davis, CA, USA

    Christopher J. Fettig

  5. Division of Business, Communication, and Environmental Science and Policy, Southern Oregon University, Ashland, OR, USA

    Pavlina McGrady

  6. USDA-ARS European Biological Control Laboratory, Montpellier, France

    Dorothy Maguire

  7. Département de Sciences Biologiques, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada

    Patrick M. A. James

  8. Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Patrick M. A. James

  9. Department of Geography, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, UK

    Jennifer Clear

  10. Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA

    Jessica Western

  11. Department of Geology and Geological Engineering and Integrated Ground Water Modeling Center, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, USA

    Reed Maxwell & Lisa Gallagher

Authors
  1. Stuart Cottrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katherine M. Mattor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jesse L. Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christopher J. Fettig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pavlina McGrady
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dorothy Maguire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Patrick M. A. James
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jennifer Clear
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Zach Wurtzebach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yu Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Andrea Brunelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Jessica Western
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Reed Maxwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Marissa Rotar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Lisa Gallagher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Ryan Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stuart Cottrell.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Handled by Graham Epstein, University of Waterloo Faculty of Environment, Canada.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 14 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 25 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cottrell, S., Mattor, K.M., Morris, J.L. et al. Adaptive capacity in social–ecological systems: a framework for addressing bark beetle disturbances in natural resource management. Sustain Sci 15, 555–567 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00736-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00736-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation