The Effects of Mountain Pine Beetle on Drinking Water Quality: Assessing Communication Strategies and Knowledge Levels in the Rocky Mountain Region

  • Katherine M. Mattor
  • Stuart P. Cottrell
  • Michael R. Czaja
  • John D. Stednick
  • Eric R. V. Dickenson


Widespread tree mortality in forested watersheds affected by the mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic across western North America raised public concerns about the effects of this climate-induced disturbance on drinking water resources. Effective communication is essential for constructively responding to such disturbances. This chapter presents an assessment of drinking water stakeholder knowledge levels, information needs, concerns, and suggested communication strategies via an expert elicitation survey in 2013. This research provides improved understanding of the challenges, concerns, and experience of drinking water providers. Knowledge levels were relatively low with 50% of respondents reporting little to no knowledge of the effects of MPB on drinking water quality. Recommendations include dissemination of non-academic research summaries, exchange of information through existing media and community resources, demonstration projects, and information clearinghouses.



The National Science Foundation Water Sustainability and Climate Program Project Grants 1204460 and 1204787 supported this work. The authors wish to thank A. Mitchell for assistance with developing the survey instrument, B. Brouillard for gathering contact information, and S. Brooker for assisting with a literature review.


  1. Addison, P. F., Rumpff, L., Bau, S. S., Carey, J. M., Chee, Y. E., Jarrad, F. C., et al. (2013). Practical solutions for making models indispensable in conservation decision-making. Diversity and Distributions, 19, 490–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, M. T., & Woosley, L. H., Jr. (2005). Water availability for the western United States-Key scientific challenges: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1261. Washington, DC: US Department of Interior, US Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  3. Bearup, L. A., Maxwell, R. M., Clow, D. W., & McCray, J. E. (2014). Hydrological effects of forest transpiration loss in bark beetle-impacted watersheds. Nature Climate Change, 4, 481–486. Scholar
  4. Borowski, I., & Hare, M. (2007). Exploring the gap between water managers and researchers: Difficulties of model-based tools to support practical water management. Water Resources Management, 21, 1049–1074. Scholar
  5. Bosetti, V., Catenacci, M., Fiorese, G., & Verdolini, E. (2012). The future prospect of PV and CSP solar technologies: An expert elicitation survey. Energy Policy, 49, 308–317. Scholar
  6. Brouillard, B. M., Dickenson, E. R. V., Mikkelson, K. M., & Sharp, J. O. (2016). Water quality following extensive beetle-induced tree mortality: Interplay of aromatic carbon loading, disinfection byproducts, and hydrologic drivers. Science of the Total Environment, 572, 649–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cann, K. F., Thomas, D. R., Salmon, R. L., Wyn-Jones, A. P., & Kay, D. (2013). Extreme water-related weather events and waterborne disease. Epidemiology and Infection, 141, 671–686. Scholar
  8. Chapin, F. S., Kofinas, G. P., Folke, C., & Chapin, M. C. (2009). Principles of ecosystem stewardship: Resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS). (2015). 2014 Report on the health of Colorado’s forests. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State Forest Service. Available from (Accessed June 2, 2016).
  10. Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS). (2016). 2015 Report on the health of Colorado’s forests: 15 years of change. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State Forest Service.Google Scholar
  11. Colorado Watershed Assembly. (2015). Water facts. Available from (Accessed June 2, 2015).
  12. Cook, C. N., Hockings, M., & Carter, R. W. (2009). Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions. Frontiers in Ecology & Environments, 8, 181–186. Scholar
  13. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Dilling, L., Lackstrom, K., Haywood, B., Dow, K., Lemos, M. C., Berggren, J., et al. (2015). What stakeholder needs tell us about enabling adaptive capacity: The intersection of context and information provision across regions in the United States. Weather Climate & Society, 7, 5–17. Scholar
  16. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: WileyGoogle Scholar
  17. Donlan, C. J., Wingfield, D. K., Crowder, L. B., & Wilcox, C. (2010). Using expert opinion surveys to rank threats to endangered species: A case study with sea turtles. Conservation Biology, 24, 1586–1595. Scholar
  18. Doria, M. D., Boyd, E., Tompkins, E. L., & Adger, W. N. (2009). Using expert elicitation to define successful adaptation to climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 810–819. Scholar
  19. Driscoll, C. T., Lambert, K. F., & Weathers, K. C. (2011). Integrating science and policy: A case study of the Hubbard Brook Research Foundation Science Links Program. BioScience, 61, 791–801. Scholar
  20. Driscoll, D. A., & Lindenmayer, D. B. (2012). Framework to improve the application of theory in ecology and conservation. Ecological Monographs, 82, 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Engle, N. L. (2011). Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental Change, 21, 647–656. Scholar
  22. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253–267. Scholar
  23. Folke, C., Colding, J., & Berkes, F. (2009). Synthesis: Building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. In F. Berkes, J. Colding, & C. Folke (Eds.), Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change (pp. 352–387). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gibbons, P., Zammit, C., Youngentob, K., Youngentob, K., Possingham, H. P., Lindenmayer, D. B., et al. (2008). Some practical suggestions for improving engagement between researchers and policy-makers in natural resource management. Ecological Management & Restoration, 9, 182–186. Scholar
  25. Hart, S. J., Schoennagel, T., Veblen, T. T., & Chapman, T. B. (2015). Area burned in the western United States is unaffected by recent mountain pine beetle outbreaks. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 112, 4375–4380. Scholar
  26. Hicke, J., Johnson, M., Hayes, J., & Preisler, H. (2012). Effects of bark beetle-caused tree mortality on wildfire. Forest Ecology and Management, 271, 81–90. Scholar
  27. Hulme, P. E. (2014). Bridging the knowing-doing gap: Know-who, know-what, know-why, know-how and know-when. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 1131–1136. Scholar
  28. Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigour–relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 516–533. Scholar
  29. Kiparsky, M., Milman, A., & Vicuña, S. (2012). Climate and water: Knowledge of impacts to action on adaptation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 163–194. Scholar
  30. Kundzewicz, Z. W., Mata, L. J., Arnell, N. W., Döll, P., Jimenez, B., Miller, K., et al. (2008). The implications of projected climate change for freshwater resources and their management. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leatherman, D., Aguayo, I., & Mehall, T. (2007). Trees and shrubs: Mountain pine beetle (Colorado State University Extension Service Fact Sheet No. 5, 528). Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University.Google Scholar
  32. Lemos, M. C. (2008). What influences innovation adoption by water managers? Climate information use in Brazil and the United States. Journal of American Water Resources Association, 44, 1388–1396. Scholar
  33. Martin, T. G., Burgman, M. A., Fidler, F., Kuhnert, P. M., Low-Choy, S., Mcbride, M., et al. (2012). Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation science. Conservation Biology, 26, 29–38. Scholar
  34. Mazi, K., Koussis, A. D., & Destouni, G. (2013). Tipping points for seawater intrusion in coastal aquifers under rising sea level. Environmental Research Letters, 8, 014001. Scholar
  35. McGrady, P., Cottrell, S., Raadik Cottrell, J., Clement, J., & Czaja, M. (2016). Local perceptions of mountain pine beetle infestation, forest management, and connection to national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Human Ecology, 44(2), 185–196. Scholar
  36. Medema, W., McIntosh, B. S., & Jeffrey, P. J. (2008). From premise to practice: A critical assessment of integrated water resources management and adaptive management approaches in the water sector. Ecology and Society, 13(29).
  37. Mikkelson, K. M., Dickenson, E. R., Maxwell, R. M., McCray, J. E., & Sharp, J. O. (2012). Water-quality impacts from climate-induced forest die-off. Nature Climate Change, 3, 218–222. Scholar
  38. Mikkelson, K. M., Bearup, L. A., Maxwell, R. M., Stednick, J. D., McCray, J. E., & Sharp, J. O. (2013a). Bark beetle infestation impacts on nutrient cycling, water quality and interdependent hydrological effects. Biogeochemistry, 115, 1–21. Scholar
  39. Mikkelson, K. M., Maxwell, R. M., Ferguson, I., Stednick, J. D., McCray, J. E., & Sharp, J. O. (2013b). Mountain pine beetle infestation impacts: Modeling water and energy budgets at the hill-slope scale. Ecohydrology, 6, 64–72. Scholar
  40. Mikkelson, K. M., Bearup, L. A., Navarre-Sitchler, A. K., McCray, J. E., & Sharp, J. O. (2014). Changes in metal mobility associated with bark beetle-induced tree mortality. Environmental Sciences; Processes Impacts, 16, 1318–1327.Google Scholar
  41. Mostert, E., & Raadgever, G. T. (2008). Seven rules for researchers to increase their impact on the policy process. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12, 1087–1096. Scholar
  42. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2015). Water sustainability climate. Available from (Accessed June 5, 2015).
  43. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resources Management, 21, 49–62. Scholar
  44. Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D., & Taillieu, T. (2007). Social learning and water resources management. Ecology and Society, 12, 5.
  45. Rhoades, C. C., McCutchan, J. H., Jr., Cooper, L. A., Clow, D., Detmer, T. M., Briggs, J. S., et al. (2013). Biogeochemistry of beetle-killed forests: Explaining a weak nitrate response. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 110, 1756–1760. Scholar
  46. Roux, D. J., Rogers, K. H., Biggs, H. C., Ashton, P. J., & Sergeant, A. (2006). Bridging the science-management divide: Moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecology and Society, 11, 4.
  47. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Timmerman, J. G., Beinat, E., Termeer, K., & Cofino, W. (2010). Analyzing the data-rich-but-information-poor syndrome in Dutch water management in historical perspective. Environmental Management, 45, 1231–1242. Scholar
  49. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS). (2017). Rocky mountain bark beetle: More than 4 million acres impacted. Available from (Accessed October 12, 2017).
  50. Van Houtven, G., Mansfield, C., Phaneuf, D. J., Von Haefen, R., Milstead, B., Kenney, M. A., et al. (2014). Combining expert elicitation and stated preference methods to value ecosystem services from improved lake water quality. Ecological Economics, 99, 40–52. Scholar
  51. Walker, B. H., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  52. Wynveen, C., Schneider, I. E., Cottrell, S. P., & Arnberger, A. (2017). Assessing place attachment measurement: A cross-site comparison in the United States and Germany. Society and Natural Resources. Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katherine M. Mattor
    • 1
  • Stuart P. Cottrell
    • 2
  • Michael R. Czaja
    • 2
  • John D. Stednick
    • 1
  • Eric R. V. Dickenson
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Forest and Rangeland StewardshipColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Human Dimensions of Natural ResourcesColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.Water Quality Research and Development DivisionSouthern Nevada Water AuthorityHendersonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringColorado School of MinesGoldenUSA

Personalised recommendations