We Are Not the Knowledge Holders: A Prescribed Fire Project Built on Collaboration
When Rose Abramoff, an assistant professor of forest science at the University of Maine, brought the first draft of a prescribed fire project to her community partners, they politely told her that part of the plan wouldn’t be very useful to them.
Like Abramoff, the partners — the Forest Stewards Guild, the Maine Forest Service, Maine Coast Heritage Trust, North Atlantic Fire Science Exchange, and The Nature Conservancy — all have an interest in prescribed fire: planned, controlled fires intentionally set by trained professionals for ecological purposes including reducing flammable materials, controlling unwanted species, enhancing habitat, supporting important species, and training firefighters.
But when Abramoff explained her intention to conduct a literature review on Northeast policies and regulations related to prescribed fire liability laws and to identify the main barriers to prescribed fire from a policy standpoint, they shook their heads. As Abramoff recalled, their message was clear: They appreciated the effort, but a report on laws they already knew wouldn’t tell them anything new.
Instead, partners wanted her to explore the attitudes and perceptions keeping Northeast landowners and land managers from using prescribed fire, along with the public’s broader perception of the practice. The strongest interdisciplinary research starts with listening to the people who will use it, so based on their feedback, Abramoff adapted her original proposal for a Mitchell Center seed grant to meet her partners’ interests. The revised version received funding in spring 2026.
Adapting to Partner Priorities
Presently, prescribed fire is not widely used in the Northeast despite significant historical precedent. “Before European colonization in the Northeast, many Indigenous communities used fire to encourage useful plants, support agriculture and hunting, and clear underbrush,” Abramoff said. “Yet 20th century fire suppression policies have since limited its use.”
Abramoff and her community partners believe current attitudes toward prescribed fire in the Northeast also may be limiting the use of this potentially effective land management tool. While prescribed fire serves a wide variety of objectives and may not be appropriate or safe in every one of Maine’s forest types, it can, in some contexts, help reduce surface fuels and lower the risk of wildfire to the state’s forests, infrastructure, and livelihoods. This is an important consideration given that Maine is the most forested state in the country with an economy still deeply tied to its woods.
It’s not only the research question that has evolved. Like any robust interdisciplinary project built on shared decision-making, the two-year project continues to change to meet the needs of its community partners.
Community-engaged research is new territory for Abramoff, and it’s been eye-opening — a reminder of the value of getting out of the lab and into communities, even when that path isn’t straightforward. “We are not the holders of the most useful knowledge in this situation,” Abramoff said. “At what point are we just serving ourselves and having fun by solving cool puzzles versus helping people in the world?”
Responding to Conditions on the Ground
A key component of the project is two in-person events dubbed Learn & Burns. These are prescribed burns designed to bring together land managers, research partners, students, and other community members.
For partners and researchers, the events are a chance to deepen scientific understanding of prescribed fire in the Northeast, including fire behavior, ignition techniques, safety, and smoke management. For observers, they’re an opportunity to safely watch a prescribed fire — and for Abramoff and her team to evaluate, through qualitative and quantitative participant surveys, how the experience shifts people’s knowledge and perceptions of the practice.
Aliesha Black, a long-serving Forest Ranger with the Maine Forest Service and vice-chair of the Maine Prescribed Fire Council said, “I think it’s very important as a prescribed fire practitioner to understand what the public’s concerns are and to be able to address those ahead of time so that we’re not running into issues when we’re trying to get good fire on the ground.”
Polly Weigand, the Eastern fire projects manager with the Forest Stewards Guild agrees. She said, “I think it’s important to understand what those barriers are instead of just presume.”
That awareness of public perception around prescribed fire came into play sooner than expected due to a drought. The first Learn & Burn was originally scheduled for fall 2025, but at the Maine Forest Service’s urging, it was postponed until the following spring. At one point, conditions had made for such a dangerous fire season that a statewide burn permit moratorium was enacted.
The decision to wait came down to public perception rather than safety. The Maine Forest Service expressed confidence in its ability to carry out the burn safely, but worried the public would question why one group was allowed to burn while everyone else faced restrictions. The research team took their advice and canceled the fall Learn & Burn.
Shifting Public Communication
Cool and wet conditions the following spring allowed the first Learn & Burn to move forward on five acres of UMaine’s Dwight B. DeMeritt Forest. Before it could happen, though, the team faced a new challenge: how to talk about it publicly.
It’s customary to notify communities ahead of a prescribed burn through signage and public service announcements. Abramoff’s team first shared its draft communication strategy with their partners before reaching out to impacted communities.
The Forest Stewards Guild advised that the wording needed more clarity to avoid alarming people. Lydia Horne, a UMaine postdoctoral associate with the School of Forest Resources who brings social science and interdisciplinary project expertise to the collaboration said the initial draft was more casual: “Hey guys, we’re doing this. Have fun. Maybe come by.”
But partners made clear that the public needed more detailed information than that. Weigand said, “They had the context correct about what needed to be covered, it just needed some massaging to be public facing.” Taking that feedback, Abramoff and Horne revised their messaging to include details on potential smoke and how sensitive individuals should respond. They also emphasized that trained officials would be on-site, that smoke would be minimized, and that specific wind directions and conditions had been chosen while acknowledging that weather could never be fully controlled.
Changing Spectator Participation
The first Learn & Burn took place on May 18, 2026. Maine Forest Service employees, in their signature fire-retardant yellow shirts, worked the controlled burn in the DeMeritt Forest bordering the Stillwater River.
The event’s format changed again in response to feedback; this time from the Forest Service and the burn operations team, who raised safety concerns about the original plan.
Initially, the research team wanted participants to park close to the burn so they could watch the preparation work firsthand: communication, condition testing, and slash removal. “The goal with this design was for people to see that they weren’t just going out and lighting a fire,” Horne said.
The Forest Service worried about having people and vehicles near the active preparation area, particularly if something unanticipated required moving everyone out quickly. In response, the team shifted its strategy. Spectators waited on campus until the burn crew was ready and the site was deemed safe, then rode in vans to watch the burn.
Plans for the next Learn & Burn are still taking shape, and will likely change again based on partner input. The team is discussing how future, partner-led Learn & Burns might allow participants to see more of the preparation without compromising safety.
Abramoff and Horne hope the events can eventually serve as a model for other groups and agencies already working with prescribed fire, while also raising general public awareness of the practice.
They acknowledge that constantly adjusting course based on partner input isn’t easy, but say the relationships and results it produces are worth the challenges.
“I think partner-engaged work is the way to go if you’re trying to make a difference in everyday communities and how they manage their natural resources.” Horne said. “It’s hard, but it’s worth it. People are often surprised by how much time it takes — you need to be connecting with people, and then there’s the time it takes for all the ideas to come together. It’s not a one-person show. But the trade-off is that the work ends up that much closer to informing actual decision-making.”