Cited by 489Ethics and Social Impacts of AIUrban Planning and GovernanceSmart Cities and Technologies

Software-sorted geographies

Open access
Graham, Stephen D.N.·2005·Progress in Human Geography

Abstract

This paper explores the central role of computerized code in shaping the social and geographical politics of inequality in advanced societies. The central argument is that, while such processes are necessarily multifaceted, multiscaled, complex and ambivalent, a great variety of `software-sorting' techniques is now being widely applied in efforts to try to separate privileged and marginalized groups and places across a wide range of sectors and domains. This paper's central demonstration is that the overwhelming bulk of software-sorting applications is closely associated with broader transformations from Keynesian to neoliberal service regimes. To illustrate such processes of software-sorting, the paper analyses recent research addressing three examples of software-sorting in practice. These address physical and electronic mobility systems, online geographical information systems (GIS), and face-recognition closed circuit television (CCTV) systems covering city streets. The paper finishes by identifying theoretical, research and policy implications of the diffusion of software-sorted geographies within which computerized code continually orchestrates inequalities through technological systems embedded within urban environments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1191/0309132505ph568oa

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In urban science, profiles can socially sort places for particular policy interventions or marketing, as done by the geodemographics industry.

    “Or in the case of urban science to socially sort places to receive certain policy interventions or marketing as practised by the geodemographics industry [71].”

    From The ethics of smart cities and urban science (2016) · cites this paper as [71]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 68 · Cited by 489

Authors
Graham, S. D. N.
Affiliations
Durham University (GB)
Corresponding author
Graham, Stephen D.N.
Venue
Progress in Human Geography
Published
2005-10
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
562-580
ISSN
  • 0309-1325 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0288
OpenAlex
W2145919769
Cited by
489
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 19
FWCI
43.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Progress in Human Geography (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban Planning and Governance
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Smart Cities and Technologies
Keywords
inequality, neoliberalism, mobility systems, face recognition, closed-circuit television, urban surveillance, social sorting, marginalized communities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review