Search

In this commentary we reflect on the potential and power of geographical analysis, as a set of methods, theoretical approaches, and perspectives, to increase our understanding of how space and place matter for all. We emphasize key aspects of the field, including accessibility, urban change, and spatial interaction and behavior, providing a high‐level research agenda that indicates a variety of gaps and routes for future research that will not only lead to more equitable and aware solutions to local and global challenges, but also innovative and novel research methods, concepts, and data. We close with a set of representation and inclusion challenges to our discipline, researchers, and publication outlets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a central component of the smart city, sensor infrastructures locate and measure a wide range of variables in order to characterise the urban environment. Perhaps the most visible expression of the smart city, sensor deployment is a key equity concern. As new sensor technologies and Big Data interact with social processes, they have the potential to reproduce well‐documented spatial injustices. Contrary to promises of providing new knowledge and data for cities, they can also create new gaps in understanding about specific urban populations that fall into the interstices of data collection – sensor deserts. Building on emerging data justice debates, specifically considering distributional, recognition, and procedural forms of injustice, we conceptualise and analyse sensor deserts through two case studies, Newcastle's Urban Observatory (UK) and Chicago's Array of Things (USA). Open sensor locations are integrated with small‐area, socio‐economic data to evidence the demographic configuration and spatialities of sensor deserts across each city. We illustrate how the structural processes via which inequality is reinforced by smart agendas manifest as uneven social and spatial outcomes. In doing so, the paper opens up a new conceptual space in which to consider what it means (not) to count in the smart city, bringing a demographic perspective to critical debates about smart urbanisms. Contrary to promises of providing new knowledge for cities, smart city sensor technologies can create new gaps in understanding about urban populations that fall into the interstices of data collection – sensor deserts. Building on data justice debates, we conceptualise and analyse sensor deserts in two case studies, Newcastle's Urban Observatory (UK) and Chicago's Array of Things (USA), using small‐area socio‐economic data. We illustrate how the structural processes via which inequality is reinforced by smart agendas manifest as uneven social and spatial outcomes, bringing a demographic perspective to critical debates about smart urbanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The term ‘left behind’ has come to connote political disaffection, alongside social and spatial inequalities in wealth and opportunity. Yet the term is also widely contested, often prioritising a regional and economic perspective at the expense of a more local and nuanced approach. In response, we argue that neighbourhood context is integral to understanding and identifying ‘left behind’ places. Building a neighbourhood classification of ‘left behindness’ for England, we evaluate the extent to which the neighbourhood trajectory contributes to our understanding of a range of multidimensional individual‐level outcomes. Our findings reveal a geography of neighbourhoods that are systematically disadvantaged over time, concentrated in major urban conurbations, and post‐industrial and coastal towns. The magnitude and impact is highlighted through poorer economic, health, social and political outcomes for those living in ‘left behind’ areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editing a journal is a privilege. It is beyond the scope of this special issue, but it would be interesting to compare these perspectives to those included here, at the 50-year mark (i.e., Franklin 2020; Griffith 2020; Murray 2020; Rey 2020). As of 2020, I GA i has the highest share of women in editorial positions of any peer journal (Franklin et al. 2020), but as Table 2 makes clear, this is an ongoing process, commenced long ago by previous editors. The main event: the 50th anniversary special issue Stemming from the sessions in New Orleans, I issued an open invitation to participants to formalize and submit their thoughts as contributions to a 50 SP th sp anniversary special issue, either as traditional papers or shorter commentaries. [Extracted from the article]

In this commentary, I reflect on geographical analysis as it enters middle age, focusing on what I perceive to be central elements—for both field and journal—of past growth and development, as well as future robustness and potential. My particular interest lies in evaluating "geographical analysis" as it stands today, taking the journal as one proxy for the larger field, and placing this within a wider context of quantitative human geography. As with any set of perspectives, mine are idiosyncratic and the product of a particular experience at a particular time. To make my case, I draw on manuscript citation histories from Geographical Analysis, my interpretation of recent developments in the discipline, and of course the insights of others who have plowed these pastures before me. I close by offering some thoughts about the future directions of our field and our journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]