United States

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Northern 

Research Station

Research Note

NRS-139

Abstract

Around the world, youth are recognized as playing an important role in reducing the 

risk of disasters and promoting community resilience. Youth are participating in disaster 

education programs and carrying home what they learn; their families, in turn, are 

disseminating knowledge into the community. In addition to making a diff erence today, 

youth disaster education programs train the adults of tomorrow to be more prepared 

citizens. As social scientists and education researchers working in wildfi re risk mitigation, 

we asked in what ways can wildfi re education programs for youth help develop and 

support fi re-adapted human communities? To begin to answer this question, we studied 

seven wildfi re education programs for youth across the U.S. Programs were based in 

schools, public agencies, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). In a series of 

interviews, we sought information that would enable us to describe and analyze (1) the 

program’s characteristics and the local resources to support it, (2) ways in which the 

program increased knowledge and awareness of wildfi re, promoted more realistic risk 

perceptions, and improved wildfi re preparedness for youth and their families, and (3) 

ways in which the program contributed to the local community becoming more adapted 

to fi re. We found that the extent to which the programs were integrated into local wildfi re 

planning and management eff orts varied, as did their eff ectiveness in reaching community 

members and homeowners. In this report we present fi ndings from one case study—the 

Minnesota Firewise in the Classroom Community Assessment Process.

Minnesota 

Firewise In The Classroom:

Youth Working with Communities 

to Adapt to Wildfi re

Pamela J. Jakes

PAMELA J. JAKES is a research forester with the U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station, 1992 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108.
2

MINNESOTA FIREWISE IN THE CLASSROOM

What do you get when you cross Minnesota communities’ need for fi re planning 

information with middle school teachers’ need for new ways to address state social studies 

standards and expand the use of technology in the classroom? Th e Minnesota Firewise 

in the Classroom Community Assessment Process (MN Firewise in the Classroom). As 

researchers conducting a national study of wildfi re education programs for youth, we 

talked to individuals involved in the Minnesota program to better understand program 

characteristics and the local resources that support it and to learn more about the 

program’s direct and indirect impacts on youth, families, and communities—including 

how the program is contributing to creating fi re-adapted communities.1

 In this research 

note, we share what we learned in Minnesota that can help other communities involve 

youth in reducing wildfi re risk.

In 2001, a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) forester heard a middle 

school teacher discuss her use of geographic information systems (GIS) in the classroom, 

and recognized an opportunity to work together for their mutual benefi t. Th e DNR was 

awarded funding for the teacher to develop a standardsbased curriculum that engaged students in projects that 

would help communities reduce their wildfi re risk. For 

the DNR, the heart of the curriculum was instruction that 

prepared students to assess wildfi re risk using Firewise2

principles, fi rst in the classroom using aerial photographs 

to evaluate the risk of individual homes throughout a 

community (Level I assessments) and then in the fi eld to 

conduct more detailed on-site assessments of at-risk homes 

(Level II assessments).3

 Th e agency’s goals were to (1) train 

students in Firewise principles, (2) provide communities 

with information they could use to assess community 

fi re risk, and (3) provide the DNR with comparable fi re 

risk data across the state. For teachers, the core program 

components were the real-world applications of GIS and 

global positioning systems (GPS) technology and introduction of the public land survey 

system. Educator goals were to expand the use of technology in the classroom and to use 

2Th e use of the term “Firewise” here refers to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

adaptation (www.dnr.state.mn.us/fi rewise/index.html) of the national Firewise Communities 

program (www.fi rewise.org).

1

U.S. policymakers have identifi ed a national goal for at-risk communities to be adapted to fi re. 

Fire-adapted communities consist of “informed and prepared citizens collaboratively planning and 

taking action to safely co-exist with wildland fi re” (Wildland Fire Leadership Council 2011, p. 33). 

3

A two-step process is often used to assess home wildfi re risk. Homes are fi rst assessed in an 

offi ce (or in this case, a classroom) using aerial photographs to rate homes on a scale from one 

(no risk) to fi ve (extreme risk) based on conditions visible on the photos—referred to as a Level I 

assessment. Homes with some level of risk (generally, moderate to extreme risk) are then visited so 

that an onsite evaluation can be conducted, with homeowners receiving a detailed description of 

conditions putting their property at risk—referred to as a Level II assessment.

Level II assessments produced by students in the Minnesota 

Firewise in the Classroom program provided homeowners with 

information they need to reduce their wildfi re risk.

Pamela Jakes, U.S. Forest Service
3

experiential, place-based, and service learning to address state 

social studies education standards. 

Th e fi rst version of the program consisted of 21 lessons 

that would take a month of daily sessions to complete. As 

someone involved in the MN Firewise in the Classroom 

program observed:

“Th e program was too robust at the beginning and that 

was the problem. It was a Cadillac and [teachers] really 

wanted just a Chev. [Teachers] wanted it simple... 

Th e desire for the teachers was there but it’s gotta be 

something that’s in their comfort zone; that they can 

easily do.”

Th e program has been revised several times, with most of the 

changes taking advantage of new technology. Th e goal of these changes is to move MN 

Firewise in the Classroom toward a Project Learning Tree4

 model, packaging the program 

so that teachers can use it on their own with little technical assistance from program 

providers. Th e current program consists of fi ve lessons: 

(1) introducing wildfi re, including the physics of wildfi re

(2) introducing Firewise principles 

(3) making sense of the public land survey system 

(4) conducting home wildfi re risk assessments 

(5) creating and presenting a community report 

On average, teachers use two or three of the fi ve lessons plans. Th e fi fth lesson, in which 

students present their fi ndings to a fi re department, city council, or local government 

department, is currently not taught in Minnesota, and there have been only three 

community presentations since 2007. 

Th e MN Firewise in the Classroom program has been supported fi nancially by the federal 

government’s National Fire Plan (NFP). When the program began, funding for the NFP 

was at its highest level, with millions of dollars being passed through to the states to 

support hazard mitigation in high-risk communities. For several years, a portion of the 

Minnesota NFP funding supported MN Firewise in the Classroom at its “Cadillac level,” 

covering the costs of program development and teacher training (including travel for 

teachers to attend training). In addition, the grant allowed the DNR to hire a consultant 

4Project Learning Tree is a national program that provides resources that can be integrated into 

lesson plans for all grades and subjects that build student understanding of and responsibility for 

the environment (www.plt.org).

The Minnesota Firewise in the Classroom program was revised 

several times to take advantage of new technology and make 

the program more accessible to teachers.

D. Schuller, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
4

as program coordinator. Th e coordinator organized and participated in teacher training 

and publicized the program at conferences and workshops. Although the current version 

of the program accesses necessary software and data online, initially program resources 

had to be located on the computers being used by students, so the coordinator brought a 

mobile computer laboratory to the classroom so students could access what they needed 

to participate in the program. Th e coordinator also provided GPS units, supplied by the 

Minnesota DNR, for student use. In many cases, the coordinator taught the classroom 

lessons, minimizing the impact on teachers. If students were conducting Level II 

assessments, the coordinator did most of the fi eld trip planning and tried to recruit local 

fi re department involvement in the program. Teachers commented that the program 

worked because the coordinator was in the classroom to make sure it worked—that there 

was no risk to teachers. Th e coordinator said that his job was to be the teachers “safety 

net” so they could work outside their comfort zone.

From the beginning, the MN Firewise in the Classroom program had two endorsements 

that generated interest among teachers. Th e Minnesota Alliance for Geographic Education 

(MAGE) sanctioned the program as a new approach for bringing GIS into the classroom, 

publicized the program in its communication outlets, and served as fi scal agent for the 

state grant. MAGE also endorsed and facilitated the program’s training—MAGE saw 

the program training as a way for teachers to further their professional development, and 

Firewise in the Classroom training was off ered at MAGE’s annual meetings. In addition, 

the Minnesota Governor’s Council on Geographic Information supported the program 

through recognition and publicity, spreading the word that the program was a way to 

integrate GIS and GPS technology in classroom activities. 

“So there’s that whole 

technology component 

[in the program]. 

This is technology 

that real people use 

in the real world, and 

it’s used in a lot of 

different occupations 

now, in businesses, 

and it’s useful to know 

something about it.”

(Minnesota Firewise in 

the Classroom teacher)

Field trips to conduct Level II assessments allowed students 

to apply their new knowledge of Firewise principles to assess 

wildfi re hazards around homes.

K. Pekarek, GIS 4 Schools
5

Th e Level II assessment portion of the program was carried out in only a few schools, and 

the program has produced no Level II assessments since 2009. Th ere were several reasons 

Level II assessments were not conducted:

• critical local fi re department involvement was diffi cult to obtain

• fi eld trip costs were prohibitive

• homeowners objected to students coming onto their property

Some teachers who were unable to do the Level II assessment fi eld trip required students 

to do Level II assessments on their own homes, increasing the likelihood that the Firewise 

message was disseminated to their families:

“When [students are] doing the Level II assessments [on their homes] they’re 

very engaged in doing the rating, they’re concerned about it, making suggestions 

to their parents. Parents have commented at conferences, ‘Th is is a worthwhile 

program, we’re glad you’re doing it.’ ” (Firewise in the Classroom teacher) 

Currently, the DNR is working with counties to develop partnerships to support 

implementation of Firewise in the Classroom. In counties with established Firewise 

or other community wildfi re planning committees, MN Firewise in the Classroom is 

seen as a tool to help communities become more adapted to fi re. In these situations, 

the DNR suggests that the local Firewise or other fi re planning committee identify a 

teacher interested in the classroom program and integrate those classroom activities with 

ongoing eff orts in wildfi re planning. In addition, DNR staff hope that homeowners 

in communities that have already begun to address wildfi re before implementation 

of MN Firewise in the Classroom will be more receptive to wildfi re information and 

recommendations from students, but this has yet to be tested.

Barriers to carrying out Level II assessments as part of the 

Minnesota Firewise in the Classroom program included lack of 

involvement by the local fi re department, cost, and homeowners’ 

hesitancy to allow students on their property.

“What worked really 

well in some of the 

other districts is 

that the fire chief 

took a really strong 

interest... I think that 

in order for the Level 

II [assessments] to 

be successful, the fire 

department really does 

need to be out there.”

(Minnesota Firewise in 

the Classroom teacher)

D. Schuller, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
6

IMPACTS OF MINNESOTA FIREWISE IN THE CLASSROOM

Th e MN Firewise in the Classroom program benefi ted teachers by providing new ways 

to address state social studies standards and to integrate technology into their classrooms. 

In addition, the program increased the wildfi re awareness of teachers and students. When 

students conducted Level II assessments on their own homes, they increased awareness in 

their own families, among their neighbors, and in their communities. Teachers heard that 

the Firewise message was being carried home by students, but not all parents were ready to 

act. A MN Firewise in the Classroom teacher recalled:

“I remember once at the parent-teacher conference this mom said, ‘Yeah, my son 

came home and he told me we needed to do this, this, and this. And I told him, 

‘Th at’s not possible son, sorry.’”

But even if the students were not having a signifi cant impact on their parents’ behavior, 

someday they will be homeowners themselves and they will have an opportunity to 

practice Firewise principles around their own homes. 

More than 300,000 Level I assessments have been completed by MN Firewise in the 

Classroom students. Th e Level I assessments enabled the DNR to assess and map wildfi re 

risk in selected areas throughout the state. Th e Level I assessments conducted by the 

students also provided information that communities can reference in a fi re protection 

plan.

Following the curriculum through to the end—including Level II assessments and 

reporting back to the community—gives communities information and data that could 

contribute to their becoming more adapted to fi re, but only three communities have 

carried the process through to community feedback. For example, the fi rst application 

of the MN Firewise in the Classroom program was in the Stillwater School District in 

east-central Minnesota. Students used their Level I assessments in consultation with the 

local fi re department to identify potential high-risk areas in the district and carried out 

Level II assessments in two townships. Th e students left door hangers at each house with 

the results of the Level II assessment and information on where homeowners could go for 

more information. Students created a detailed written report and presented their fi ndings 

to the local township governments, fi re departments, and the DNR. A teacher involved in 

“As a high school 

teacher, my 

requirement is GIS 

and if [MN Firewise 

in the Classroom] is 

a vehicle to get them 

exposure to GIS I’ll use 

it. I suppose I could 

find something else, 

but it’s hands on, it’s 

their own community, 

it’s their own region. I 

don’t see that there are 

many opportunities 

that could match this 

program, to bring those 

pieces together the way 

it does.”

(Minnesota Firewise in 

the Classroom teacher)

“[The Minnesota DNR supported the Firewise in 

the Classroom program] to get the Firewise message 

out to communities, and [they saw] students as 

great liaisons to their parents and families and also 

as the next generation of homeowners. [The DNR] 

hoped that as students grow up and buy a home or 

build a home they will take it to heart.” 

(Minnesota Firewise in the Classroom teacher)
7

the program early on said that students enjoyed and learned 

from the program because it was a hands-on activity and 

students were helping to solve real-world problems in their 

own community:

“[What’s valuable about the program for students is] 

that whole service learning idea, that we’re helping 

a community, we’re helping the DNR, and we’re 

helping our local fi re department. We are members of 

the community, we’re not just kids, we’re part of this 

community and we can make a diff erence. We can 

learn some stuff that maybe other people don’t know 

and we can share it with them.” (Minnesota Firewise 

in the Classroom teacher)

Because few schools conducted Level II assessments (students conducted fewer than 

1,200 Level II assessments) or reported fi ndings back to their communities, little wildfi re 

management knowledge was spread beyond the classroom. DNR staff expressed concern 

that the Level I data were not being used by communities in wildfi re protection planning, 

and that Level II assessments were seldom conducted and therefore were not available 

for homeowners to use in reducing wildfi re hazards. Th e DNR hopes that, by building 

support for MN Firewise in the Classroom in county land departments or forestry offi ces 

(common in Minnesota county government), the program will play a larger role in local 

wildfi re planning and hazard mitigation eff orts.

Th e MN Firewise in the Classroom program grant called for the program coordinator 

to assist other states in developing their own Firewise in the Classroom programs. Th e 

coordinator was instrumental in developing and implementing the West Virginia Firewise 

in the Classroom program (Jakes 2012). Individuals involved in the West Virginia 

program indicated that the program would not have been possible without the Minnesota 

coordinator’s involvement. 

“[Students] always like stuff that’s hands 

on, and I think the idea that it’s not just an 

academic exercise is motivating for them. It’s not 

just something for school, for points, for a grade. 

This is something that someone is counting on 

and they expect us to have a certain level of 

professionalism and accuracy because decisions 

are going to be made based on some of this.”

(Minnesota Firewise in the Classroom teacher)

By reporting their fi ndings back to the community, students 

involved in the Minnesota Firewise in the Classroom program 

contributed to communities becoming more adapted to fi re.

S. Damon, Stillwater Public Schools
8

COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS TO MINNESOTA 

FIREWISE IN THE CLASSROOM

To date, few communities have been involved with implementing MN Firewise in the 

Classroom—it has been almost exclusively an individual teacher initiative. Teachers (1) 

learned about the program through MAGE, at various educational conferences, or from 

their colleagues, (2) attended the program training, and, (3) with the help of the program 

coordinator, implemented the program in their classroom. More than 110 teachers have 

taken the MN Firewise in the Classroom program training, and thousands more have 

been introduced to the program at workshops and conferences. Program training and 

implementation were free to teachers and schools, except for teachers’ time in and out of 

the classroom. Where local fi re departments have been involved, their knowledge, time, 

and standing in the community were critical to the program impacting the community 

and local homeowners; however, local fi re departments were involved in less than half of 

the communities where the program has been off ered. If the county land departments and 

forestry offi ces become more involved in the program, their staff could make signifi cant 

contributions to program implementation and enhance program impacts.

Th e major contributors to the MN Firewise in the Classroom program have been at 

the state level—MAGE and the DNR. MAGE is no longer actively involved in the 

promotion of MN Firewise in the Classroom, but its eff orts early on created broad 

program awareness among Minnesota geography educators and made training more 

readily available. Th e DNR’s fi nancial and technical support provided a strong foundation 

for the program. One of the most signifi cant DNR actions was hiring a program 

coordinator. Teachers involved in MN Firewise in the Classroom said that the program’s 

successful implementation rested on the shoulders of the program coordinator. DNR staff 

believe that the program would not have succeeded without the program coordinator’s 

enthusiasm, dedication, and attention to detail.

The Minnesota Firewise in the Classroom program employed 

place-based learning that encouraged students to use what they 

had learned in the classroom to study the local community.

“I’ve had feedback just 

on the project itself, 

where a parent has 

said, ‘My student really 

enjoyed participating 

in this’ or ‘My student 

came home talking 

about this,’ but I 

haven’t heard back 

anything like, ‘Well, 

as a result of this we’ve 

changed x, y, z.’”

(Minnesota Firewise in 

the Classroom teacher)

S. Damon, Stillwater Public Schools
9

NEXT STEPS FOR MINNESOTA FIREWISE IN THE 

CLASSROOM

MN Firewise in the Classroom has introduced thousands of Minnesota teachers and 

students to Firewise principles and GIS and GPS technology, and has provided the DNR 

with valuable data for analyzing wildfi re risk in selected areas of the state. However, this 

is a program in transition, moving from a relatively costly, classroom-based program with 

signifi cant technical and implementation support to a more independent, self-contained, 

community-based, teacher-friendly program. To that end, individuals interviewed 

identifi ed several next steps:

• Th e DNR will continue to develop relationships with counties that are engaged 

in wildfi re management planning to identify a role for MN Firewise in the 

Classroom in that process.

• Th e DNR will continue to streamline the program so that teachers can 

implement it with little technical assistance.

• Given the declining involvement by MAGE and the absence of federal funding 

for a program coordinator, teachers will need to assume a more active role in 

promoting the program to their peers and providing support to new teachers.

Through detailed training sessions, teachers gained experience 

so that they were comfortable using the Minnesota Firewise in the 

Classroom program to enhance learning in their classrooms.

K. Pekarek, GIS 4 Schools
10

LESSONS FOR OTHER YOUTH WILDFIRE EDUCATION 

PROGRAMS

Analysis of the MN Firewise in the Classroom program suggests several lessons that will 

help new programs increase their signifi cance:

• Provide program evaluations that address the goals of major supporters

Teachers implemented the Firewise in the Classroom program to (1) build knowledge 

and skills around real-world applications of GIS and GPS technology and (2) meet 

state social studies standards, and they evaluated their students to the extent and in a 

manner that they thought necessary and appropriate. Th e program coordinator counted 

the number of teachers trained, students going through the program, and Level I and II 

assessments completed. Neither the teacher nor program coordinator evaluations directly 

measured or described the extent to which the DNR goals were accomplished. Although 

students contributed to the DNR Level I assessment database, there were no standardized 

measurements or descriptions of the knowledge they gained or documentation of the use 

of student-generated Level I or Level II assessments in community wildfi re planning. Th is 

lack of documentation of program impacts on the ground caused one DNR staff er to 

comment:

“Th e benefi t for [the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources] was going to 

be that the communities would have this data and be able to incorporate it into 

their community wildfi re protection plan. What I found... is that very few of the 

communities were using the data. So, I sit back and look and say what good is 

this?” (Minnesota DNR staff )

Program champions need to be able to respond to this type of comment if they expect 

continued support for the program. In addition, the DNR needs to require that program 

implementers provide standardized evaluation data that address DNR goals.

• Seek and maintain a balance between educational goals and wildfi re management 

goals both in planning and practice

Although the DNR initiated the MN Firewise in the Classroom program, and the 

curriculum as written addressed both education and wildfi re management goals, in 

practice the program focused more on educator goals than agency goals. Th is focus helped 

“I think the message 

[students take home is], 

‘There are some very 

simple things we can do 

at our house to reduce 

the risk of wildfire loss, 

and mom and dad, it 

doesn’t really take that 

much. We can pick up 

the sticks and we can 

trim [trees] and we can 

keep the firewood away 

from the house. These 

are some basic things 

we can do.’ So, I think 

that all the kids get that 

part of it.”

(Minnesota Firewise in 

the Classroom teacher)
11

ensure that teachers would fi nd value in the program, but it kept the program focused 

on the classroom rather than the community. A classroom focus meant that teachers 

could drop the more challenging and costly activities that had the potential to improve 

wildfi re management planning in the local community. Involvement by local emergency 

management professionals in the program would help the program maintain a balance 

between educational goals and wildfi re management goals. 

• Involve local emergency managers, including the fi re department, and relevant 

citizen committees early on

For the Firewise in the Classroom program to have the maximum benefi t on the ground, 

local emergency managers must be convinced that the data being collected are valuable for 

emergency planning and risk mitigation. A major fl aw in the Minnesota program was that 

teachers were driving the program and then had to sell the program to the local emergency 

managers, which can be a hard sell. Th is fl aw resulted in the data not being used to their 

full potential. In West Virginia, the adoption of a Firewise in the Classroom program 

modeled on Minnesota’s was initiated and supported by the homeowners’ association 

Firewise Committee, helping guarantee that information generated by the students was 

used by local homeowners to reduce their wildfi re risk (Jakes 2012).

• Involve families in Firewise in the Classroom activities

Evaluations of international hazard education programs for youth point to the 

potential for these programs to produce benefi ts in the home and community through 

intergenerational learning. Teachers can help ensure that this learning takes place if they 

require students to conduct Level II assessments or complete other activities at home and 

have parents signoff that they have discussed the activity with their student. Level II home 

assessments and parent signoff s would document additional program accomplishments.

• Take steps to make the program self-sustaining

A signifi cant amount of public funding was invested in developing and implementing the 

MN Firewise in the Classroom program, but improvements over the years are creating a 

more self-contained, teacher-friendly, and community-relevant program. DNR foresters 

believe that, by the time grant funding is exhausted, it will be possible for the program to 

continue with minimal DNR involvement or outside funding.

“I was already doing 

some GIS stuff with 

my students, but I 

really liked the service 

learning component of 

it... and getting them 

the opportunity to work 

on real world problems 

and real world issues.”

(Minnesota Firewise in 

the Classroom teacher)
12

PROGRAM INFORMATION AND CONTACTS

Minnesota Firewise in the Classroom program, http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/education/

wildfi re/fi rewise_communityproject.html

Ken Pekarek, Minnesota Firewise in the Classroom program coordinator, kenpekarek@

comcast.net or http://www.gis4schools.org 

Firewise Communities Web site, http://www.fi rewise.org/

WILDFIRE EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR YOUTH 

RESEARCH PROJECT TEAM:

Dr. Pamela Jakes Dr. Heidi Ballard and Ms. Emily Evans

U.S. Forest Service University of California-Davis

pjakes@fs.fed.us hballard@ucdavis.edu

 erevans@ucdavis.edu

Dr. Martha Monroe and Ms. Annie Oxarant Dr. Victoria Sturtevant

University of Florida Southern Oregon University

mcmonroe@ufl.edu Sturtevant@sou.edu

oxarant@ufl.edu

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources staff and Minnesota 

Firewise in the Classroom teachers for sharing their program experiences and insights. A 

special thanks to program coordinator Ken Pekarek, who was extremely generous with his 

time and Minnesota program knowledge and who also participated in the West Virginia 

Firewise in the Classroom case study.

Funding for this study was provided by the National Fire Plan through the Northern 

Research Station and the home institutions of the research team members.

ABOUT THIS SERIES

Th is is one in a series of Forest Service publications presenting descriptions of individual 

case studies included in the National Fire Plan study “Promoting fi re adapted human 

communities through youth wildfi re education programs.” Other research notes in 

the series can be found by searching the title “Youth wildfi re education program” at 

Treesearch, http://treesearch.fs.fed.us, or by contacting a member of the research team.
13

Figure 1.—Research framework for understanding the link between wildfi re education programs for youth and fi re-adapted 

human communities, where youth wildfi re education programs, using environmental education methods, infl uence 

students and families and contribute to communities becoming adapted to fi re, with local community resources supporting 

the wildfi re education program.

5Th e WUI Mitigation Committee provides coordinated leadership, input, and recommendations 

to public wildfi re management agencies for the achievement of fi re-adapted communities in the 

wildland urban interface. http://www.nwcg.gov/branches/ppm/wuimc/index.htm 

METHODS

Th is report is part of a larger investigation of how youth wildfi re education programs 

contribute to the development of fi re-adapted human communities. Th e National 

Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy defi nes a fi re-adapted community as 

consisting of “informed and prepared citizens collaboratively planning and taking action 

to safely co-exist with wildland fi re” (Wildland Fire Leadership Council 2011, p. 33). 

A working group of the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Mitigation Committee of 

the National Wildfi re Coordinating Group5

 has identifi ed four types of adaptations a 

community must make to become adapted to fi re: (1) social adaptations, (2) political 

adaptations, (3) ecological adaptations, and (4) emergency management adaptations. In 

studying wildfi re education programs for youth, we looked for ways in which the program 

contributed to adaptations in these four areas.

We explored the environmental education and community wildfi re management literature 

and developed a model to explain how education programs and fi re-adapted human 

communities interact (Fig. 1). Th e case study reported here is helping us further defi ne 

and characterize the model. Our fi rst step was to describe the program, focusing on 

program content and the extent to which the program employed experiential, place-based, 
14

and service learning activities (blue box in Fig. 1). Next, we collected data on whether 

and how the program increased knowledge and awareness of the physical, ecological, and 

social aspects of wildfi re, promoted more realistic risk perceptions, and improved wildfi re 

preparedness for youth and their families (down arrow in Fig. 1). We then looked for 

ways the program may be contributing to the local community being more adapted to 

fi re (green oval in Fig. 1). Finally, we identifi ed community resources that supported the 

program (up arrow in Fig. 1).

Th e case study approach is a common research method applied when scientists want to 

study “who, what, how and why” for a contemporary event within a real-life context 

(Yin 2003). We selected programs for case studies that would represent (1) programs 

that are contributing (even in a small way) to the development of a fi re-adapted human 

community or have the potential to do so in the near future, (2) a range of program 

types (based in schools, clubs or organizations, and NGOs), and (3) diff erent regions 

of the country. We used purposive sampling to select interviewees (Lindlof and Taylor 

2002). Th is selection process is appropriate when scientists need to identify people who 

have specialized knowledge about the program being studied. Data were gathered using 

semi-structured, face-to-face interviews following an analytic induction approach (Glaser 

and Strauss 1999). Analytic induction is ideally suited for this study because it allows us 

to identify patterns and themes surrounding concepts that have received little empirical 

study. For the MN Firewise in the Classroom case, we interviewed fi ve individuals, 

including teachers and DNR staff . Additional data were collected from secondary sources 

such as the MN Firewise in the Classroom curriculum, presentations or handouts 

presented at various meetings, and newsletter or newspaper articles.

LITERATURE CITED

Glaser, B.G.; Strauss, A.L. 1999. Th e discovery of grounded theory: strategies for 

qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gryuter: New York. 271 p.

Jakes, P.J. 2012. West Virginia Firewise in the Classroom: youth working with 

communities to adapt to wildfi re. Res. Note NRS-138. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 13 p.

Lindlof, T.R.; Taylor, B.C. 2002. Qualitative communication research methods. 2nd

ed. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 357 p.

Wildland Fire Leadership Council. 2011. A national cohesive wildland fi re 

management strategy. http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/national.shtml. 

(Accessed August 12, 2011).

Yin, R. 2003. Case study research: design and methods. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 181 p.
Printed on Recycled Paper

Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/

Published by: For additional copies:

U.S. FOREST SERVICE U.S. Forest Service

11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073 359 Main Road

 Delaware, OH 43015-8640

 Fax: 740-368-0152

May 2012 Email: nrspubs@fs.fed.us

Manuscript received for publication 19 December 2011

Jakes, Pamela J. 2012. Minnesota Firewise in the Classroom: youth 

working with communities to adapt to wildfi re. Res. Note NRS-139. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 14 p.

KEY WORDS: fi re-adapted community, youth environmental education, youth 

disaster education, service learning, place-based learning, experiential learning
www.nrs.fs.fed.us