The forum participants were to be drawn from the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre and Australian Academy of Science existing network of partners, which includes universities, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the Bureau of Meteorology, all the fire agencies and land management agencies, as well as expertise and knowledge of Indigenous people. Hence, participants would have represented research organisations, fire operations, all levels of government, and industries with a direct role in managing landscapes for fire, including forestry, national parks, defence, and water and power utilities. In the case of research organisations and universities, it is unclear if the disciplinary mix was adequate for critical analysis of such a complex topic.

As 2019/2020 heads towards being a historically significant bushfire season,¹ it seems appropriate to prepare a virtual issue on the geographies of bushfires in Australia and to recognise the significant contributions of Australian geographers to this field of study. We may also ponder how these contributions may well have informed the cancelled bushfire forum? For this virtual issue, I have selected 10 articles published in Geographical Research over the past five years. This virtual collection will expand on perspectives from scholarly contributions to an earlier special issue of Geographical Research on fire research in Australia (Eriksen & Head, 2014). Their guest editorial for that special issue is included in addition to the 10 papers as an important backdrop. To provide some context, they have suggested we should consider how “changes in land use and population growth in fire‐prone landscapes (particularly in peri‐urban areas) combine with warming climate to increase the risk and impact of bushfires” (p. 1). They also state that “coexisting with fire over the coming decade will involve increasingly complex trade‐offs” (p. 1). These assertions seem particularly relevant to what we have observed during the unprecedented 2019/2020 bushfire season.

Confounding effects of anthropogenic climate change on the geographies of bushfires is a central premise in four of the articles in this virtual issue. The drying trends over much of southern Australia have been accompanied by an increase in extreme fire weather, and a longer fire season, across large parts of Australia since the 1970s, and has been linked to the expanding tropics– driven by global heating (Turton, 2017). Head's (2015) essay, “The Anthropoceneans” is prescient. She has boldly asked, “how we should respond to and shape the socioecological transformations ahead of us?” (p. 311). By way of example, she has also asked us to “ponder the pressures on stretched volunteer capacities as bushfire seasons extend at either end of summer, into spring and autumn” (p. 317). This very issue has challenged bushfire responses during the unprecedented 2019/2020 fire season.

Elrick‐Barr, Smith, Thomsen, and Preston (2015) have examined climate risk perceptions of coastal households in two contrasting local government areas in Australia–Mandurah in Western Australia and Moreton Bay in Queensland. While their study has considered several climatic risks relevant to coastal households for both areas, perceived exposure to heat waves, severe storm, and bushfire were all significantly higher (P < .01) in Mandurah than Moreton Bay. Their empirical work has extended our limited understanding of the comparative risk priorities of households in the Australian coastal zone with broader implications. Of interest, larger variation in risk perception has been identified within the communities rather than between the communities. The 2019/2020 catastrophic bushfires that affected coastal tourism towns such as Mallacoota in eastern Victoria² further illustrate the value and importance of such empirical studies.

McManusS' (2015) Presidential Address to the Institute of Australian Geographers has also added to the literature on climate change and bushfire risk and resilience, particularly in regard to planning processes. He discusses the failure of Sydney's 2014 metropolitan strategy/plan to address transboundary issues, such as climate change, thereby raising valid concerns about long‐term sustainability. In particular, he reminds us that “the natural hazards to which Sydney must be made more resilient are clearly identified as flooding and bushfire” (p. 353).

In the last paper in the climate change theme, Lucas (2018) has examined what underlies public polarisation about climate change in Hobart, Tasmania. She states “climate change predictions for Tasmania are less extreme than those for other parts of Australia but nonetheless have potentially profound implications in the form of increased bushfire risk and sea‐level rise for the coastal and heavily forested city of Hobart” (p. 299). This timely study argues that understanding the values underlying divergent interpretations of the threat of climate change is essential to resolving deadlock in political discourse.

Two important articles have also examined Indigenous perspectives of bushfires in Australia. Wiseman and Bardsley (2016) consider opportunities for Indigenous community‐based monitoring in Australian rangelands. The focus of their study is the Alinytjara Wilurara Natural Resources Management region in the north‐west of South Australia. They note that “the rangelands have changed dramatically since colonisation as a result of declining traditional fire management; loss of native biodiversity; pastoral activities; and spreading invasive species” (p. 56). Their study identifies opportunities for spatial and temporal community monitoring designed for the region that utilises scientific knowledge for local community benefit. Applications include identifying and monitoring local community hazards, including flooding, fire risk, and food security.

At a larger scale, Thomassin, Neale, and Weir (2019) have discussed the natural hazard sector's engagement with Indigenous peoples. The focus of their critical review paper is on Canada, Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, and the United States (or CANZUS countries). This article has numerous references to Indigenous fire management across the four countries. A key finding in their review is that despite recognition across CANZUS countries of the importance of involving Indigenous peoples in natural hazard management strategies and structures, there has been no significant transformation of this sector including in relation to devolution of decision‐making power of natural hazards management from government to Indigenous peoples.

The final four articles have examined the importance of space, place attachment, gender, and bushfire risk. The spatial optimisation of fire service coverage in Brisbane has been examined by KC, Corcoran, and Chhetri (2018). Their study extends the application of the Maximum Coverage Location Model to compute and delineate the spatial coverage of current and proposed new fire stations to align with population growth estimates for Brisbane. They reveal important gaps in fire cover that are likely to eventuate in the future due to population growth. While focused on residential fire, there are learnings from this paper that can be extended to bushfire risk management, particularly in peri‐urban and rural settings.

Property and place attachment and biodiversity law reform in New South Wales has formed the basis for an article by Bartel and Graham (2016). While not specifically concerned with bushfires, the emphasis on vegetation law, biodiversity conservation, and land and tree clearing make this work particularly relevant to this virtual issue as there are clear links among these agents and bushfires. For example, they draw attention to “the flagrant misuse of bushfire clearance exemption in urban areas.” (p. 279).

Continuing the theme of “place attachment,” Ratnam and Drozdzewski (2018) have explored the attachment to home in the context of bushfire risk in the Blue Mountains of New South Wales. Their research “highlights the importance of being attentive to the social and cultural dimensions of bushfire risk–in this case, how attachments to the homes is built, what is built from, and how individuals' elements of attachment coalesce to cement strong roots to place, despite imminent risk.” (p. 51).

The final article under this theme has considered gendered responses to the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria (Whittaker, Eriksen, & Haynes, 2016). Their article builds on earlier research focussed on resident preparedness and response to bushfires by taking a gendered analysis. Their findings are in line with other research on gender and bushfires, with important implications for bushfire safety policy and practice in Australia. The last two articles—among many others—show why sociocultural information is critical to our broader understanding of human responses to bushfire hazards and risk.

We commend these articles to you.

论坛参与者将来自林区大火和自然灾害合作研究中心以及澳大利亚科学院现有的合作伙伴网络，其中包括大学，英联邦科学和工业研究组织（CSIRO），气象局，所有消防机构以及土地管理机构，以及土著人民的专门知识和知识。因此，与会人员将代表研究机构，消防部门，各级政府和直接管理火灾景观的行业代表，包括林业，国家公园，国防以及水电公司。对于研究机构和大学来说，尚不清楚学科组合是否足以对这种复杂的话题进行批判性分析。

随着2019/2020年将成为具有历史意义的丛林大火季节，[ ^1]在澳大利亚的丛林大火地理上准备一个虚拟的期刊，并认识到澳大利亚地理学家对该领域的重要贡献似乎是适当的。我们也可能会思考这些贡献如何能够很好地告知已取消的丛林大火论坛？对于这个虚拟问题，我选择了过去五年在《地理研究》上发表的10篇文章。该虚拟收藏品将在学术研究和澳大利亚地理研究的早期特刊（Eriksen＆Head， 2014年）的基础上进行扩展。）。除了作为重要背景的10篇论文外，还包括他们特刊的特邀社论。为了提供一些背景信息，他们建议我们应考虑“易火景观（尤其是在城市周边地区）土地利用和人口增长的变化与气候变暖相结合，以增加丛林大火的风险和影响”（第1页） ）。他们还指出，“在未来十年与火共存将涉及日益复杂的取舍”（第1页）。这些断言似乎与我们在空前的2019/2020丛林大火季节观察到的情况特别相关。

在这个虚拟问题的四篇文章中，人为气候变化对丛林大火地理的混杂影响是中心前提。自1970年代以来，澳大利亚南部大部分地区的干旱趋势伴随着极端火灾天气的增加和更长的火灾季节，并且与全球变暖驱动的热带地区发展有关（Turton，  2017）。头（2015），“人类世”是有先见之明的。她大胆地问：“我们应该如何应对和塑造我们面前的社会生态变革？” （第311页）。举例来说，她还要求我们“随着夏季大火季节延长至夏季和春季至秋季，延长志愿者能力的压力”（第317页）。这个问题已经在空前的2019/2020火灾季节挑战了丛林大火的应对措施。

Elrick -巴尔，史密斯，汤姆逊，和普雷斯顿（2015年）在澳大利亚曼都拉在西澳大利亚州和莫顿湾昆士兰两种截然不同的当地政府区域已经检查沿海家庭的气候风险的看法。尽管他们的研究考虑了与这两个地区的沿海家庭相关的几种气候风险，但人们感觉到的热浪，严重风暴和丛林大火的风险都明显更高（P<.01）在摩尔顿湾（Mantonrah）内。他们的经验工作扩展了我们对澳大利亚沿海地区家庭的相对风险优先重点的有限理解，并具有更广泛的意义。有趣的是，已经在社区内部而不是社区之间发现了更大的风险感知差异。2019/2020年毁灭性大火影响了维多利亚州东部^2的沿海旅游小镇，例如Mallacoota，进一步说明了这种经验研究的价值和重要性。

McManusS（2015）致澳大利亚地理学家协会的主席致辞也增加了关于气候变化，林区大火风险和复原力的文献，特别是在规划过程方面。他讨论了悉尼2014年大都市战略/计划未能解决气候变化等跨界问题，从而引发了人们对长期可持续性的关注。他特别提醒我们，“必须明确指出必须使悉尼更具韧性的自然灾害是洪水和丛林大火”（第353页）。

在有关气候变化主题的最后一篇论文中，卢卡斯（2018）研究了塔斯马尼亚霍巴特关于气候变化的公众两极分化的根源。她指出：“对塔斯马尼亚州的气候变化预测没有澳大利亚其他地区那么极端，但对沿海和森林茂密的霍巴特市，森林大火风险增加和海平面上升的形式具有潜在的深远影响”（第299页） ）。这项及时的研究认为，理解对气候变化威胁的不同解释所依据的价值观对于解决政治对话中的僵局至关重要。

两项重要的文章还考察了澳大利亚土著对森林大火的看法。怀斯曼和巴德斯利（2016）考虑在澳大利亚牧场进行基于社区的土著居民监测的机会。他们的研究重点是南澳大利亚州西北部的Alinytjara Wilurara自然资源管理地区。他们指出：“自从殖民化以来，由于传统火种管理方式的减少，牧场已经发生了巨大变化；丧失本地生物多样性；田园活动；和传播入侵物种”（第56页）。他们的研究确定了为该地区设计的时空社区监控机会，该地区利用科学知识为当地社区带来利益。应用程序包括识别和监视当地社区的危害，包括洪水，火灾风险和粮食安全。

在一个规模较大，汤玛森，尼尔，和威尔（2019）已经与土著人民讨论的自然灾害部门的参与。他们的批判性审查论文的重点是加拿大，澳大利亚，新西兰的奥特罗阿和美国（或加拿大的国家）。本文对这四个国家的土著火灾管理有很多参考。他们的审查中的一个关键发现是，尽管在加拿大所有国家中都认识到让土著人民参与自然灾害管理战略和结构的重要性，但该部门并未发生重大转变，包括与自然灾害决策权的下放有关从政府到原住民的管理。

最后四篇文章探讨了空间，场所依恋，性别和森林大火风险的重要性。在布里斯班消防服务覆盖的空间优化已被检查KC，科克伦，和刹帝利（2018）。他们的研究扩展了最大覆盖位置模型的应用，以计算和描绘当前和拟议的新消防站的空间覆盖，以与布里斯班的人口增长估算保持一致。它们揭示了火灾覆盖的重要缺口，由于人口增长，将来很可能会导致这种缺口。虽然着眼于住宅火灾，但从本文中学到的经验可以扩展到丛林火灾风险管理，特别是在郊区和农村地区。

新南威尔士州的财产和场所依附以及生物多样性法律改革已成为Bartel和Graham（2016）发表文章的基础。尽管不特别涉及丛林大火，但对植被法，生物多样性保护以及土地和树木砍伐的重视使这项工作与这一虚拟问题特别相关，因为这些动因与丛林大火之间存在明确的联系。例如，他们提请人们注意“在城市地区公然滥用免除森林大火豁免权”。（第279页）。

Ratnam和Drozdzewski（2018）延续了“场所依恋”的主题，探索了在新南威尔士州蓝山森林大火危险背景下对房屋的依恋。他们的研究“强调了注意丛林大火风险的社会和文化影响的重要性，在这种情况下，如何建造房屋的依恋物，房屋的构造物以及个人的依恋元素如何结合以巩固牢固的根源，尽管有迫在眉睫的风险。” （第51页）。

在这一主题下最后一篇文章中已经考虑在维多利亚（2009年的黑色星期六森林大火性别回应惠特克，埃里克森，与海恩斯，2016）。他们的文章建立在较早的研究基础之上，该研究侧重于通过性别分析对居民的准备和对森林大火的应对。他们的发现与有关性别和丛林大火的其他研究一致，对澳大利亚的丛林大火安全政策和实践具有重要意义。前两篇文章（以及其他许多文章）说明了为什么社会文化信息对于我们更广泛地了解人类对森林大火危害和风险的反应至关重要。

我们向您推荐这些文章。