The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence For The Sustainable Development Goals

Philosophical Studies Series
Francesca Mazzi
Luciano Floridi Editors
The Ethics
of Artificial
Intelligence
for the Sustainable
Development Goals
Volume 152
Editor-in-Chief
Mariarosaria Taddeo, Oxford Internet Institute
University of Oxford
Oxford, UK
Advisory Editors
Lynne Baker, Department of Philosophy
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, USA
Stewart Cohen, Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ, USA
Radu Bogdan, Department of Philosophy
Tulane University
New Orleans, LA, USA
Marian David, Karl-Franzens-Universität
Graz, Austria
John Fischer, University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA, USA
Keith Lehrer, University Of Arizona
Tucson, AZ, USA
Denise Meyerson, Macquarie University
Sydney, Australia
Francois Recanati, Ecole Normale Supérieure
Institut Jean Nicod
Paris, France
Mark Sainsbury, University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX, USA
Barry Smith, State University of New York at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY, USA
Linda Zagzebski, Department of Philosophy
University of Oklahoma
Norman, OK, USA
Philosophical Studies Series aims to provide a forum for the best current research in
contemporary philosophy broadly conceived, its methodologies, and applications.
Since Wilfrid Sellars and Keith Lehrer founded the series in 1974, the book series
has welcomed a wide variety of different approaches, and every effort is made to
maintain this pluralism, not for its own sake, but in order to represent the many
fruitful and illuminating ways of addressing philosophical questions and
investigating related applications and disciplines.
The book series is interested in classical topics of all branches of philosophy
including, but not limited to:
• Ethics
• Epistemology
• Logic
• Philosophy of language
• Philosophy of logic
• Philosophy of mind
• Philosophy of religion
• Philosophy of science
Special attention is paid to studies that focus on:
• the interplay of empirical and philosophical viewpoints
• the implications and consequences of conceptual phenomena for research as well
as for society
• philosophies of specific sciences, such as philosophy of biology, philosophy of
chemistry, philosophy of computer science, philosophy of information, philoso-
phy of neuroscience, philosophy of physics, or philosophy of technology; and
• contributions to the formal (logical, set-theoretical, mathematical, information-
theoretical, decision-theoretical, etc.) methodology of sciences.
Likewise, the applications of conceptual and methodological investigations to
applied sciences as well as social and technological phenomena are strongly
encouraged.
Philosophical Studies Series welcomes historically informed research, but
privileges philosophical theories and the discussion of contemporary issues rather
than purely scholarly investigations into the history of ideas or authors. Besides
monographs, Philosophical Studies Series publishes thematically unified
anthologies, selected papers from relevant conferences, and edited volumes with a
well-defined topical focus inside the aim and scope of the book series. The
contributions in the volumes are expected to be focused and structurally organized
in accordance with the central theme(s), and are tied together by an editorial
introduction. Volumes are completed by extensive bibliographies.
The series discourages the submission of manuscripts that contain reprints of
previous published material and/or manuscripts that are below 160
pages/88,000 words.
For inquiries and submission of proposals authors can contact the editor-in-chief
Mariarosaria Taddeo via: [email protected]
Francesca Mazzi • Luciano Floridi
Editors
The Ethics of Artificial

Intelligence for the
Sustainable Development
Goals
Editors
Francesca Mazzi Luciano Floridi
Saïd Business School Oxford Internet Institute
University of Oxford University of Oxford
Oxford, UK Oxford, UK
ISSN 0921-8599 ISSN 2542-8349 (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-031-21146-1 ISBN 978-3-031-21147-8 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21147-8
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2023
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents
Part I AIxSDGs: Theory and Governance

Introduction: Understanding the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence
for the Sustainable Development Goals �� 3
Francesca Mazzi and Luciano Floridi
in Support of the SDGs: Six Recurring Challenges and Related
AI
Opportunities Identified Through Use Cases�� 9
Francesca Mazzi, Mariarosaria Taddeo, and Luciano Floridi

Joined Up Thinking on How AI Can Contribute to the SDGs�� 35
Geoff Mulgan
A Realist’s Account of AI for SDGs: Power, Inequality and AI
in Community�� 43
Li Min Ong and Mark Findlay
The Potential of Artificial Intelligence for Achieving Healthy
and Sustainable Societies�� 65
B. Sirmacek, S. Gupta, F. Mallor, H. Azizpour, Y. Ban, H. Eivazi,
H. Fang, F. Golzar, I. Leite, G. I. Melsion, K. Smith, F. Fuso Nerini,
and R. Vinuesa
Artificial Intelligence: Poverty Alleviation, Healthcare, Education,
and Reduced Inequalities in a Post-COVID World�� 97
Margaret A. Goralski and Tay Keong Tan
Missing Circles: A Dignitarian Approach to Doughnut
Economics Through AI Applications�� 115
Kostina Prifti

The Role of AI in SDG: An African Perspective �� 133
Steve A. Adeshina and Oluwatomisin Aina
v
vi Contents
Artificial Intelligence for Advancing Sustainable Development

Goals (SDGs): An Inclusive Democratized Low-Code Approach�� 145
Meng-Leong How, Sin-Mei Cheah, Yong Jiet Chan, Aik Cheow Khor,
and Eunice Mei Ping Say
Ethical AI: The European Approach to Achieving the SDGs
Through AI �� 167
Valeria Benedetti del Rio
AI as a SusTech Solution: Enabling AI and Other 4IR Technologies
to Drive Sustainable Development Through Value Chains�� 183
Matthew Stephenson, Iza Lejarraga, Kira Matus, Yacob Mulugetta,
Masaru Yarime, and James Zhan
AI for Sustainable Finance: Governance Mechanisms
for Institutional and Societal Approaches�� 203
Sep Pashang and Olaf Weber
Big Tech Corporations and AI: A Social License to Operate
and Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships in the Digital Age �� 231
Marianna Capasso and Steven Umbrello
Part II AIxSDGs: Existing and Potential Use Cases

A Legal Identity for All Through Artificial Intelligence: Benefits
and Drawbacks in Using AI Algorithms to Accomplish SDG 16.9�� 253
Mirko Forti
Socially Good AI Contributions for the Implementation
of Sustainable Development in Mountain Communities
Through an Inclusive Student-Engaged Learning Model�� 269
Tyler Lance Jaynes, Baktybek Abdrisaev, and Linda MacDonald Glenn
Gender, Health, and AI: How Using AI to Empower Women
Could Positively Impact the Sustainable Development Goals �� 291
Tomás Gabriel García-Micó and Migle Laukyte

Smart Control of Drinking Water Grids Using IoT �� 305
Jalal Dziri and Tahar Ezzedine

Algorithmic Art and Cultural Sustainability in the Museum Sector�� 327
Giulia Taurino
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Circular Value Creation
for Sustainable Development Goals�� 347
Malahat Ghoreishi, Luke Treves, Roman Teplov, and Mikko Pynnönen
Computer-Aided Corporate Sense-Making and Prioritization
for SDGs�� 365
Innar Liiv, Erkki Karo, and Ralf-Martin Soe
Contents vii
Role of Artificial Intelligence in Advancing Sustainable Development

Goals in the Agriculture Sector�� 379
Soenke Ziesche, Swati Agarwal, Uday Nagaraju, Edson Prestes,
and Naman Singha
for Sustainable Agriculture and Rangeland Monitoring�� 399
AI
Natalia Efremova, James Conrad Foley, Alexey Unagaev,
and Rebekah Karimi
Artificial Neural Networks Predict Sustainable Development
Goals Index �� 423
Seyed-Hadi Mirghaderi
Sailing the Data Sea to Advance Research on the Sustainable
Development Goals�� 441
Andy Spezzatti, Elham Kheradmand, Kartik Gupta, Marie Peras,
and Roxaneh Zaminpeyma
An Empirical Analysis of AI Contributions to Sustainable
Cities (SDG 11)�� 461
Shivam Gupta and Auriol Degbelo
Index�� 485
Contributors
Baktybek Abdrisaev Department of History and Political Science, College of

Humanities and Social Sciences, Utah Valley University, Orem, UT, USA
Steve A. Adeshina Nile University of Nigeria, Abuja, Nigeria
Swati Agarwal AI Policy Labs, London, UK
CU-92, Pitampura, New Delhi, India
Oluwatomisin Aina Nile University of Nigeria, Abuja, Nigeria
H. Azizpour Division of Robotics, Perception, and Learning, KTH Royal Institute
of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Y. Ban Division of Geoinformatics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden
Marianna Capasso Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy
Yong Jiet Chan Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Sin-Mei Cheah Singapore Management University, Singapore, Singapore
Auriol Degbelo Institute of Geoinformatics, University of Münster,
Münster, Germany
Valeria Benedetti del Rio Baker McKenzie, Chicago, IL, USA
Jalal Dziri Communication System Laboratory Sys’Com, National Engineering
School of Tunis, University Tunis El Manar, BP, Tunis, Tunisia
Natalia Efremova Queen Mary University London, London, UK
H. Eivazi FLOW, Engineering Mechanics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden
Tahar Ezzedine Communication System Laboratory Sys’Com, National
Engineering School of Tunis, University Tunis El Manar, BP, Tunis, Tunisia
ix
x Contributors
H. Fang Division of Robotics, Perception, and Learning, KTH Royal Institute of

Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Mark Findlay Centre for AI & Data Governance, Yong Pung How School of Law,
Singapore Management University, Singapore, Singapore
Luciano Floridi Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Department of Legal Studies, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
James Conrad Foley DeepPlanet, Oxford, UK
Mirko Forti Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy
Tomás Gabriel García-Micó Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain
Malahat Ghoreishi LUT School of Business and Management, LUT University,
Lappeenranta, Finland
Linda MacDonald Glenn Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical
College, Albany, NY, USA
Center for Applied Values and Ethics in Advanced Technologies (CAVEAT), Crown
College, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA
F. Golzar Division of Energy Systems, Department of Energy Technology, KTH
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Climate Action Centre, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Margaret A. Goralski Quinnipiac University, Hamden, CT, USA
Kartik Gupta University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Shivam Gupta Bonn Alliance for Sustainability Research, University of Bonn,
Bonn, Germany
Meng-Leong How The University of Newcastle, Australia, Callaghan, Australia
Tyler Lance Jaynes Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical College,
Albany, NY, USA
Department of Philosophy & Humanities, College of Humanities and Social
Sciences, Utah Valley University, Orem, UT, USA
Rebekah Karimi Enonkishu Conservancy, Lemek, Kenya
Erkki Karo Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn
University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
Elham Kheradmand University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
Aik Cheow Khor Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Migle Laukyte Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain
Contributors xi
I. Leite Division of Robotics, Perception, and Learning, KTH Royal Institute of

Iza Lejarraga Economic Counsellor, Development Centre, Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France
Innar Liiv School of Information Technology, Tallinn University of Technology,
Tallinn, Estonia
F. Mallor FLOW, Engineering Mechanics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden
Kira Matus The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST),
New Territories, Hong Kong
Francesca Mazzi Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
G. I. Melsion Division of Robotics, Perception, and Learning, KTH Royal Institute
of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Seyed-Hadi Mirghaderi Department of Management, School of Economics,
Management, and Social Sciences, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
Geoff Mulgan UCL, London, UK
Yacob Mulugetta Energy and Development Policy, University College London
(UCL), UK
Uday Nagaraju AI Policy Labs, London, UK
F. Fuso Nerini Division of Energy Systems, Department of Energy Technology,
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Li Min Ong Centre for AI & Data Governance, Yong Pung How School of Law,
Sep Pashang School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
Marie Peras AgroParisTech, Paris, France
Edson Prestes AI Policy Labs, London, UK
Informatics Institute, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre,
RS, Brazil
Kostina Prifti Erasmus School of Law; Jean Monet Centre of Excellence on
Digital Governance, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Mikko Pynnönen LUT School of Business and Management, LUT University,
Eunice Mei Ping Say Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
xii Contributors
Naman Singha AI Policy Labs, London, UK

Greater Noida, India
B. Sirmacek Smart Cities, School of Creative Technologies, Saxion University of
Applied Sciences, Enschede, The Netherlands
K. Smith Division of Robotics, Perception, and Learning, KTH Royal Institute of
Ralf-Martin Soe FinEst Centre for Smart Cities, Tallinn University of Technology,
Tallinn, Estonia
Andy Spezzatti AI for Good Foundation, Geneva, Switzerland
Matthew Stephenson Policy and Community Lead, International Trade and
Investment, World Economic Forum (WEF), Geneva, Switzerland
Mariarosaria Taddeo Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Alan Turing Institute, British Library, London, UK
Tay Keong Tan Radford University, Radford, VA, USA
Giulia Taurino Institute for Experiential AI, Northeastern University,
Boston, MA, USA
Roman Teplov LUT School of Business and Management, LUT University,
Luke Treves LUT School of Business and Management, LUT University,
Steven Umbrello Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
Alexey Unagaev DeepPlanet, Oxford, UK
R. Vinuesa FLOW, Engineering Mechanics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden
Olaf Weber School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
Masaru Yarime The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST),
Hong Kong
Roxaneh Zaminpeyma McGill University, Montreal, Canada
James Zhan Investment and Enterprise, United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD), Geneva, Switzerland
Soenke Ziesche AI Policy Labs, London, UK
B20 Malcha Marg, Delhi, India
Part I
AIxSDGs: Theory and Governance
Introduction: Understanding the Ethics
of Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable
Development Goals
Francesca Mazzi and Luciano Floridi
Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) as a general-purpose technology has great

potential for advancing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
However, the AI×SDGs phenomenon is still in its infancy in terms of diffusion,
analysis, and empirical evidence. Moreover, a scalable adoption of AI solutions to
advance the achievement of the SDGs requires private and public actors to engage
in coordinated actions that have been analysed only partially so far. This volume
provides the first overview of the AI×SDGs phenomenon and its related challenges
and opportunities. The first part of the book adopts a programmatic approach, dis-
cussing AI×SDGs at a theoretical level and from the perspectives of different stake-
holders. The second part illustrates existing projects and potential new applications.
Keywords Artificial intelligence · Sustainable Development Goals · AI for social

good · AI for climate change · Ethical AI
The idea of the present volume The ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable
Development Goals emerged in the context of the homonymous Oxford Initiative
“AIxSDG”. The urge for the Initiative derived from the acknowledgement that proj-
ects that use AI to deliver socially beneficial outcomes are on the rise (Cowls et al.
2021), but they are not sufficiently studied, nor are their implications fully under-
stood (Vinuesa et al. 2020). The goal of the Initiative was to advance knowledge of
the AIxSDGs phenomenon to help policymaking in the area of sustainability by
identifying global challenges that artificial intelligence (AI) can help tackle, and
F. Mazzi (*)
Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
e-mail: [email protected]
L. Floridi
Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 3

F. Mazzi, L. Floridi (eds.), The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable
Development Goals, Philosophical Studies Series 152,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21147-8_1
4 F. Mazzi and L. Floridi
developing best practices and lessons learned from empirical evidence. In such a
framework, the book’s contributors agreed to participate by submitting their research
concerning AI and a socially oriented, human project (Floridi 2020).
The volume focuses on three points: hope as a starting point, a vision as a goal to
fulfil, and a process, as what makes it possible to implement the vision starting from
the hope.
The hope is that the development and use of AI may positively impact individu-
als, societies, and environments (Floridi 2019). This is what lies behind the idea of
“AI for social good” (AI4SG). Such an idea has become popular within the AI com-
munity (Floridi et al. 2020). As a general-purpose technology, AI can solve many
problems and perform various tasks. There are many applications of AI for social
good. They encompass all sectors, and more become available daily (Floridi et al.
2020). However, it is well known that AI can also be overused or used for unethical
purposes (King et al. 2020). This is why an ethical analysis is a critical element of
AI4SG. Different stakeholders are promoting the integration of ethical requirements
into AI applications: from private companies to governments of countries that are
including AI in their national strategies. AI for social good cannot be inconsistent
with the ethical framework guiding the design and evaluation of AI in general
(Floridi et al. 2020). In particular, the application of the principle of beneficence is
essential. It states that AI should benefit people and the natural world. Indeed, AI for
social good should aim to deliver environmentally and socially sustainable
outcomes.
To adopt a programmatic approach, one must define those outcomes. Here, we
come to the vision, which is to choose the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
as a benchmark to evaluate the social goodness of AI applications. The United
Nations General Assembly set the SDGs in 2015 to integrate the economic, social,
and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. They are priorities for
socially beneficial action on which there is international consensus. Thus, they offer
a sufficiently empirical and reasonably uncontroversial benchmark to evaluate the
positive social impact of AI for social good globally. Using the SDGs to assess
AI4SG applications (AI×SDGs) means equating AI4SG with AI that supports the
SDGs (Cowls et al. 2021). Such an equation does not disregard that examples of
socially good uses of AI are not limited to the realm of the SDGs (Cowls et al.
2021). However, the SDGs offer clear, well-defined, and shareable boundaries to
identify positively what is socially good. Being internationally agreed goals for
development, they represent the closest thing available to a humanity-wide consen-
sus on what ought to be done to promote positive social change and the conservation
of the natural environment (Cowls et al. 2021).
The existing body of research on SDGs already includes studies and metrics on
how to measure progress in attaining each of the 17 SDGs, and the 169 associated
targets defined in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. These metrics can
be applied to measure the impact of AI use cases to achieve the SDGs (Cowls et al.
2021). Moreover, AI projects across different SDGs can improve existing synergies
and lead to new ones between projects addressing different SDGs. AI×SDGs enables
better planning and resource allocation, once it becomes clear which SDGs are
Introduction: Understanding the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable… 5
under-addressed and why (Cowls et al. 2021). And using the SDGs as a benchmark
for AI applications creates a potential precedent for future priorities’ planning after
and beyond 2030, a methodology for a dialogue between different countries.
Having a hope and a vision, the question is how to move from the former to the
latter. This is the third point covered by this volume: the actual processes imple-
mented to deliver AI×SDGs. There are many ways to deliver AI applications that are
socially and environmentally good. The choice of which routes to follow is crucial
also because different alternatives could be littered with unanticipated failures,
missed opportunities, or unwarranted interventions (Cowls et al. 2021). Finding the
best approaches requires designing AI systems that consider many variables, includ-
ing the supporting and surrounding environments (such as regulations, business
models, and indexes) that maximise the benefits deriving from AI×SDGs, all of
which require concerted actions. To this end, the book provides multiple perspec-
tives on AI×SDGs, aiming to move from “what” to “how” concerning some of the
ideas delineated by Floridi (2020) to favour the marriage between the green of the
environment and the blue of the digital.
The book is divided into two parts. Part I has a programmatic approach, discuss-
ing AI×SDGs at a theoretical level and in terms of governance. Chapter 1 provides
a critical analysis of the topics analysed in the volume. Chapter 3 (Mulgan) and
Chapter 4 (Ong and Findlay) introduce the topic by providing different perspectives
on the concept of AI×SDGs. Mulgan discusses its potential, the problem of R & D
misalignments, and the need for concerted actions to stimulate the adoption of
AI×SDGs solutions. Findlay proposes a critical approach to the techno-optimistic
narrative of AI for social good, highlighting the risks of it becoming a new type of
green/ethics washing. Chapter 5 (Sirmacek et al.) illustrates the potential of AI for
achieving healthy and sustainable societies, underlining the relationship between
sustainable and smart cities and the achievements of other goals, such as addressing
climate change. Chapter 6 (Goralski and Tan) highlights the need for policies and
partnerships that foster AI to tackle the SDGs, in light of the positive impact that AI
can have in he ight against the unsolved, interconnected challenges of poverty,
healthcare, education, and inequalities. Chapter 7 (Prifti) provides an economic
analysis of the phenomenon: it uses the doughnuts theory to evaluate to what extent
AI can foster fair prosperity through a green (environmental and ecological) use of
resources, in line with the principle of solidarity understood as the mutual care of
relations with others, with the world, and with future generations (Floridi 2020).
Chapter 8 (Adesinha and Aina) brings a regional perspective on the topic, describ-
ing the actual and the potential role of AI×SDGs in Africa, with a specific focus on
SDGs 3 (good health and well-being) and 16 (peace, justice, and strong institu-
tions). Chapter 9 (How et al.) advocates a user-friendly, low-code, and human-
centric probabilistic strategy to achieve a democratic approach to AI, representing
an opportunity in terms of education, awareness, and engagement, also in connec-
tion with more data exploration and human-centric insights. Chapter 10 (Benedetti
del Rio) discusses the proposal of a European regulation on AI (AI Act), given the
crucial role it may have in directing AI investments, and in functioning as an infra-
ethics, i.e., an infrastructure of rules that facilitate or hinder the moral or immoral
6 F. Mazzi and L. Floridi
behaviour of the agents involved (Floridi 2020). As a result of a public entity’s

action, regulation is essential to create a framework that facilitates coordination of
the efforts of private entities, which can further advance the maximisation of
AI×SDGs at a sectorial level. Chapter 11 (Stephenson et al.) contributes to such
debate by delineating a three-part solution encompassing international cooperation,
governmental policies, and opportunities for firms. Chapter 12 (Pashang and Weber)
illustrates governance mechanisms in the financial sector. It focuses on ESG param-
eters and how AI can help make capitalism sustainable and fair, i.e., to produce
wealth in a sustainable way (in terms of environmental impact) and to distribute it
fairly (in terms of social equality) (Floridi 2020). Chapter 13 (Capasso and
Umbrello) focuses on sustainable business models for big tech companies, illustrat-
ing social licenses as another potential mechanism of infraethics oriented towards
facilitating the occurrence of what is morally good.
Part II of the book focuses on existing and potential AI use cases to advance the
SDGs. Chapter 14 (Forti) describes how AI can be used to provide legal identity, as
the human project for the digital age, and a mature information society must include
the “silent world” of those left out (Floridi 2020). Chapter 15 (Jaynes et al.) focuses
on providing AI-powered learning tools to mountain communities to foster stu-
dents’ participation and remove geographical barriers to education. Chapter 16
(Garcia-Mico and Laukyte) discusses the use of AI for gender equality in relation to
medical data, as a way of increasing the prosperity of the whole society and all the
people who belong to it, independently of their gender and of the environments in
which they live. Chapter 17 (Dziri and Ezzedine) focuses on smart control of drink-
able water to advance less mature information societies where potable water is not
ordinary (Floridi 2020). Chapter 18 (Taurino) focuses on computational art and cul-
tural sustainability in museums, highlighting how AI can help foster the symbiotic
relationship of mutual benefit between environmental, artificial, cultural, and digital
environments (Floridi 2020). Chapter 19 (Ghoreishi et al.) explores the use of AI to
create circular value, in line with the idea that the link between capitalism and linear
consumerism “can and must be severed, in favour of a new coordination between
capitalism and the economy of caring for the world (that is, circular fostering)”
(Floridi 2020). Chapter 20 (Liiv et al.) investigates the use of AI to integrate an
SDG-related assessment in the corporate strategy, arguing that all stakeholders,
including the corporate world, should share the responsibility to take care of the
SDGs. Chapter 21 (Ziesche et al.) and Chapter 22 (Efremova et al.) investigate AI
for agriculture. The former provides an overview of the SDGs targets related to
agriculture and the challenges and opportunities concerning the adoption of cost-
effective digital solutions through multi-stakeholder collaborations. The latter
describes a case study that uses AI with Earth observation data for rangeland moni-
toring. Chapter 23 (Mirgadheri) illustrates the use of artificial neural networks to
predict a Sustainable Development Goals index. Chapter 24 (Spezzati et al.)
describes the idea of building a Sustainable Development Data Catalog. Both pro-
vide examples of how AI can contribute to and benefit from the creation of informa-
tion, i.e., constitutive and constituent elements of the infosphere, where the SDGs as
part of a human project can be achieved. Finally, Chapter 25 (Gupta and Degbelo)
Introduction: Understanding the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable… 7
discusses the use of AI for Sustainable Cities (SDG11), providing an overview of

the state of the art that includes gaps and areas for further research.
Overall, the book seeks to provide the reader with an intellectually stimulating
collection of perspectives and a wealth of information about AI×SDGs, while high-
lighting some of the many areas needing further research and action. The hope is
that it may contribute to a robust foundation for further much-needed studies on
AI×SDGs.
References
Cowls, Josh, Andreas Tsamados, Mariarosaria Taddeo, and Luciano Floridi. 2021. A Definition,
Benchmark and Database of AI for Social Good Initiatives. Nature Machine Intelligence 3 (2):
111–115. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-021-00296-0.
Floridi, Luciano. 2019. What the Near Future of Artificial Intelligence Could Be. Philosophy &
Technology 32 (1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00345-y.
———. 2020. The Green and the Blue: A New Political Ontology for a Mature Information
Society, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3831094. Rochester: Social Science Research Network.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3831094.
Floridi, Luciano, Josh Cowls, Thomas C. King, and Mariarosaria Taddeo. 2020. How to Design AI
for Social Good: Seven Essential Factors. Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (3): 1771–1796.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00213-5.
King, Thomas C., Nikita Aggarwal, Mariarosaria Taddeo, and Luciano Floridi. 2020. Artificial
Intelligence Crime: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Foreseeable Threats and Solutions.
Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (1): 89–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-00081-0.
Vinuesa, Ricardo, Hossein Azizpour, Iolanda Leite, Madeline Balaam, Virginia Dignum, Sami
Domisch, Anna Felländer, Simone Daniela Langhans, Max Tegmark, and Francesco Fuso
Nerini. 2020. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Achieving the Sustainable Development
Goals. Nature Communications 11 (1): 233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14108-y.
AI in Support of the SDGs: Six Recurring
Challenges and Related Opportunities
Identified Through Use Cases
Francesca Mazzi, Mariarosaria Taddeo, and Luciano Floridi
Abstract This chapter provides an overview of six topics related to governance,

ethical, legal, and social implications of artificial intelligence (AI) for sustainable
development goals (SDGs) initiatives. We identified six common challenges and
related opportunities to mitigate such challenges, as referred to by the authors ana-
lysing the chapters provided in the book The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the
Sustainable Development Goals. They are (1) governance and collaboration, (2)
private investments and the role of big tech companies, (3) AI and communities, (4)
AI and individuals, (5) jobs and skills, and (6) impact assessment.
Keywords Artificial intelligence · Sustainability · AI for SDGs · Ethics · Good

AI society
1 Introduction
Artificial intelligence (AI) has a great potential to advance the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Cowls et al. 2021a). As a general-purpose
technology, AI has many possible applications to the SDGs: broadly speaking, AI
can be used for understanding problems, solution seeking, and decision-making
(Ong and Findlay 2023). In many fields, and regarding specific SDGs targets, it can
F. Mazzi
Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
M. Taddeo
Alan Turing Institute, British Library, London, UK
L. Floridi (*)

10 F. Mazzi et al.
be argued that the use of AI represents the best practice, for AI methods and tech-
niques can produce results quantitatively and/or qualitatively superior to those
achieved by other means (Cowls et al. 2021a).1
For example, predictive modelling algorithms are useful to deal with energy and
climate related challenges. For example, hybrid models based on the support vector
regression (SVR) and particle swarm optimisation (PSO) can be used to predict
precision energy usage from supplied data (Goudarzi et al. 2019). Overall, predic-
tive algorithms with long- and short-term memory (an artificial recurrent neural
network architecture used in predictive modelling) are instrumental when dealing
with time-series data to make future predictions (Sirmacek et al. 2023) that can help
with climate change. They have a memory capacity for both long- and short-term
data periods and behave more robustly than the earlier mathematical models
(Sirmacek et al. 2023). Similarly, generative adversarial networks (GANs) that
learn deep representations without extensively annotated training data are one of the
best options for generalisation capabilities and are widely used in smart cities
(Sirmacek et al. 2023). For example, traffic event detection is an important and
complex task in smart transportation modelling and management, and researchers
developed GANs to perform detection (Chen et al. 2021). Another example is the
Bayesian network technique for statistical data analysis, which allows visualising
the relationships between data variables educing AI-augmented thinking that is use-
ful when discussing AI and sustainability (Sirmacek et al. 2023). For example,
Sierra et al. (2018) used a Bayesian approach to optimise social sustainability in
infrastructure projects, for supporting sustainability-related decision-making.
The topic of AI for SDGs comes from using AI for social good (Taddeo and
Floridi 2021). The AI for social good movement aims to establish interdisciplinary
partnerships centred around using AI applications to support in achieving SDGs
targets (Tomašev et al. 2020). This area of research aims to harness the potential for
good of AI while mitigating associated ethical challenges (Taddeo and Floridi
2018). The “potential” is, as described above, vast, with these technologies capable
of supporting multiple SDGs across various sectors. It interests the public and the
private sectors. Relevant literature discusses government’s readiness to employ AI
for SDGs (Liengpunsakul 2021), existing AI for SDGs projects (Cowls et al. 2021a),
conceptual and normative approaches to AI governance for a global digital ecosys-
tem supportive of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Gill and
Germann 2021), and the role of AI in the construction of sustainable business mod-
els (Di Vaio et al. 2020) and in typical business challenges that might require con-
version to meet SDGs-related standards, such as production and supply-chain
disruption, inventory management, budget planning, and workforce management
(Visvizi 2022), to name a few. However, the challenges accompanying AI develop-
ment and deployment are similarly complex. As shown by Vinuesa et al. (2020), AI
1
Such superiority in terms of, for example, data processing shall be benchmarked against the envi-
ronmental impact of using AI.
AI in Support of the SDGs: Six Recurring Challenges and Related Opportunities… 11
can be an enabler and an inhibitor of the SDGs. The use of AI is intimately linked
to nonuniversal access to increasingly large data sets and the computing infrastruc-
ture required to use them (Visvizi 2022). Unethical outcomes may derive from the
design, development, and deployment of AI (Cowls et al. 2020). The lack of a com-
prehensive regulation of AI aimed at mitigating unethical outcomes might pose
risks to the achievement of the UN SDGs, for example, in relation to developing
countries. The goal of zero poverty is threatened by the imperfect design and imple-
mentation of decision-making algorithms that have displayed evidence of bias, lack
ethical governance, and limit transparency on the basis of their decisions, causing
unfair outcomes and amplifying unequal access to finance (Truby 2020). The chal-
lenges and opportunities around AI are many, and they require debates around eth-
ics, for AI must be treated as a normal technology, and the questions concerning
ethics are and will always remain a human matter (Floridi 2021a). Scholars have
called for all stakeholders, including governments, policymakers, industry, and aca-
demia, to contribute towards the development of AI to avoid such potential threats
to ensure that ethical principles are embedded in AI applications that affect our
everyday lives (Holzinger et al. 2021).
Against this backdrop, the present paper aims to provide an overview of six
recurring challenges (and related opportunities to mitigate them) of using AI in sup-
port of the SDGs. They were extrapolated from the volume: The Ethics of Artificial
Intelligence for the Sustainable Development Goals (Springer, 2023). The catego-
ries are the following: (1) governance and collaboration, (2) private investments and
the role of big tech companies, (3) AI and communities, (4) AI and individuals, (5)
jobs and skills, and (6) impact assessment.
Categories (1) and (2) focus on public and private actors, as the use of AI to
advance the SDGs gained (and further requires) the attention of both stakeholders.
Categories (3) and (4) concern the effects of adopting AI solutions from the per-
spectives of communities and individuals, respectively. (5) and (6) focus on two
pragmatic aspects needed for the large-scale implementation of AI solutions.
The paper describes and illustrates such categories as challenges and related
opportunities to mitigate such challenges, providing examples. It identifies a “fil
rouge” of such categorisation and discusses its limitations. It concludes by high-
lighting areas for future research.
2 Governance and Collaboration
2.1 The Challenges
The implementation of AI for SDGs requires complex and coordinated actions. It is

complex because the use of AI for SDGs influences and is influenced by multiple
factors. The 17 SDGs and 169 associated targets are interconnected; therefore,
12 F. Mazzi et al.
fulfilling the 2030 Agenda will require coordination, measurement, and manage-
ment concerning, among others, financial resources, knowledge, and technology
(Pashang and Weber 2023). It is coordinated because government, industry, aca-
demia, and society must work together to reach the SDGs (Goralski and Keong
Tan 2023). Actions also need to be coordinated at different levels. For example, dif-
ferent stakeholders should complement each other’s actions, for example, industry
can provide innovative technology. At the same time, the public sector can direct
such technology for a public interest purpose, such as poverty alleviation (Goralski
and Keong Tan 2023). Coordination is also needed at an international level, as coun-
tries should cooperate to avoid duplication of R&D efforts in developing AI, and
companies might need a system of incentives to do so, for absent incentives, only a
few of them deliver solutions to promote peace, justice, and strong institution
(Adeshina and Aina 2023). Therefore, national, sectoral, regional, or even global
governance plays an essential role in fostering collaboration between different
stakeholders.
Regulation of AI can also represent a critical milestone to incentivise the private
sector’s investments in AI. Regulating AI means establishing rules that can either be
neutral, foster, or hinder the development of AI for SDGs. The draft EU legislation
is the first of its kind, and it represents an example of the pros and cons of an AI
regulation in relation to the SDGs. As underlined by Benedetti del Rio (2023), the
draft EU legislation presents positive aspects (that will be exposed in the next para-
graph, as opportunities) and negative aspects that might require further research and
work to incentivise AI for SDGs. The author identified negative aspects as the audit-
ability of the system, the missed topics, and a potentially paradoxical interpretation
of human-centricity. The auditability of the system refers to the improbable event of
achieving logs and descriptions of the reasoning that led from information to the
inference of the following fact. This is because auditable AI means explicable and
reverse-engineerable AI, which conflicts with the protection of proprietary rights
over the same AI system (Benedetti del Rio 2023). However, it should be acknowl-
edged that some of the suggested forms of auditing for AI do not necessarily infringe
on proprietary rights (Mökander and Floridi 2021).
The term “missed topics” refers to the absence of issues that would have been
desirable in the legislation. For example, the lack of reference to energy efficiency
or carbon emission budgets. It would have been advisable to include limitation on
the emissions that can be put into the atmosphere in the whole process of projecting,
designing, and realising an AI system, considering that attention to the climate crisis
also requires collaboration and governance efforts (Cowls et al. 2021b; Benedetti
del Rio 2023). However, one could question whether the AI legislation is the appro-
priate forum for such considerations. Indeed, one of the main challenges of the AI
act is also the limitation of its scope. Considering that AI can be applied in all indus-
tries, sectoral legislation might compensate for the missed topics. However, this
creates further fragmentation of relevant law and hinders the desired “Brussels
effect”2 that can facilitate international coordination.
Finally, the interpretation of human-centricity can hinder the SDGs, for human-
centricity establishes a prioritisation of humans over wildlife and other living enti-
ties which nonetheless represent 75% of the living surface of our planet (Benedetti
del Rio 2023). The interpretation of concepts such as “human-centricity” implies
theoretical justifications and, most of all, political willingness, and consensus, that
require agreement on the philosophical ground at the international level (in Europe
in relation to the AI Act, but possibly a more inclusive level of international agree-
ment). Such a lack of a common understanding of human-centricity might represent
a further obstacle in adopting AI for SDGs solutions.3
2.2 The Opportunities
It is desirable to identify and discuss ideas for policies and regulations that point
towards multi-stakeholder collaboration. This sub-section aims to provide an over-
view of three macro-opportunities highlighted by scholars in the field.
The first opportunity focuses on instruments of international governance that
could be created, for example, in the context of existing international organisations.
Stephenson et al. (2023) envisages the creation of a Sustainable Technology Board
that could be in the context of the G20 as a mechanism for coordination, coopera-
tion, and scaling of sustainable technology solutions. Such Board would be, for
example, responsible for the development of standards and guidelines concerning
new technologies, to facilitate their sustainable adoption. This idea presents two
main challenges: the complexity of international agreement on creating such a
board, especially without political stability, and the risk of concentration of power
absent an appropriate structure that guarantees a division of powers. He also hypoth-
esises the development of a platform for cooperation, where policymakers, firms,
experts, and civil society can identify needs, share both concerns and opportunities,
and transparently discuss ways to implement sustainable technology solutions. The
author hypothesises the creation of data trusts, and/or the adoption of typology for
data, aimed at facilitating management and sharing. He advocates for the use of
2
The “Brussels effect” refers to the impact of the European regulation on other jurisdictions and
the likelihood that they adopt similar norms. Such effect relates to the chronological anteriority of
the European legislator in filling one legislative vacuum related to the digital space, for example,
concerning data protection law in 2016 with the General Data Protection Regulation.
3
For example, the prevalent European views on human-centricity and AI do not necessarily coin-
cide with the Chinese ones. None of the three dominant schools of Chinese philosophical thinking
place human beings in a supreme position within the universe. On the Chinese interpretation of
human-centricity and anthropomorphism: “Applying Ancient Philosophy to Artificial Intelligence”,
available at https://www.noemamag.com/applying-ancient-chinese-philosophy-to-artificial-intel-
ligence/ accessed 4.6.2022.
14 F. Mazzi et al.
homomorphic encryption4 to share data safely and securely, either as a complement

or an alternative to data trusts (Stephenson et al. 2023). Finally, he suggests the
public sector should (i) orient investment incentives to encourage the uptake of
sustainable technology solutions; (ii) use performance-based regulation to balance
flexibility with oversight, to protect societies from unfavourable outcomes; and (iii)
ensure equivalency agreements on standards and certifications to create coordina-
tion between jurisdictions.
The second opportunity concerns the regulation of AI. Benedetti del Rio (2023)
identified aspects of the draft EU regulation that can positively impact the develop-
ment of AI for SDGs. Specifically, the adoption of regulation is desirable because
(1) it is a regional piece of legislation directly applicable in the legislative frame-
work of all member states without additional adequacy measures and because (2) it
could have an extraterritorial scope thanks to the “Brussels effect” (Benedetti del
Rio 2023). This creates greater legal certainty at the international level that is neces-
sary for AI for SDGs to flourish. Also, the prohibition of all AI systems and services
that create an unacceptable risk for the rights and freedoms of the individuals
involved contributes to creating international minimum standards (Benedetti del
Rio 2023), and it responds to the ethical principle of non-maleficence, coherent with
the seven essential factors for AI for social good (Cowls et al. 2020). Finally, the
auditability of AI reasoning, the equity of potential outcomes, the human-centricity,
the requirements for human-machine interface tools that allow human oversight of
high-risk AI systems, and the centrality of human rights are other elements that
respond to principles of AI ethics, a necessary requirement for AI for SDGs
(Benedetti del Rio 2023). Therefore, a “Brussels effect” of such regulation might be
desirable for those jurisdictions that agree with and share European values, for it can
facilitate international coordination towards the development of AI for SDGs
solutions.
The third opportunity addresses the use of AI in governance mechanisms to pro-
mote the SDGs. For example, Adeshina and Aina (2023) describe the use of AI to
achieve a high rule of law index, based on the following principles: accountability,
just law, open government, and accessible and impartial justice. He reports the
example of Rwanda, which had topped the list as the country in Africa with the best
rule of law, and argues that digitising the court systems helped Rwanda achieved
such result. Digitising court systems is connected to improving accessibility to civil
justice, transparency, accountability, and reduction of delays in resolving cases and
of corruption. He argues that using AI will help improve these factors, advancing
SDG 16, peace, justice, and strong institutions, as well as other SDGs’ targets and
indicators consequently. It should be noted that such a solution, like all those that
concern the digitisation of the public sector, comes with two main challenges: the
risk of surveillance, absent a solid data protection law that ensures citizens’ privacy,
and a rise in the level of unemployment that could be compensated with adequate
4
Homomorphic encryption makes it possible to analyse encrypted data without revealing the data’s
content (Stephenson et al. 2023).
policies and with the increase in demand for AI-related jobs, as discussed further in
Sect. 6.
3 Private Investments and the Role of Big Tech Companies
3.1 The Challenges
This section will focus on the role of big tech companies in relation to the SDGs, for
their availability of data and their ability to influence political agenda, and on how
the problem of investment misalignment, as defined by Mulgan (2023), affects
such role.
Although big tech companies have invested in initiatives and solutions for social
good, the efforts are rather fragmented (Mulgan 2023). The position of big tech
companies is increasingly predominant in terms of data availability, which raises
multiple concerns. Their economic and political influence is likely to follow market
benefits, which do not necessarily point towards the SDGs. This can be described as
the “private investment misalignment”: global R&D directed towards the SDGs is
currently of relatively low impact, non-systemic, and marginal. Contrarily, consis-
tent investments are made in developing AI for commercial purposes and in relation
to the military and security sectors (Mulgan 2023). As shown by the STRINGS
project (Steering Research and Innovation for Global Goals), the degree of mis-
alignment between global research and the SDGs is visible within nations and glob-
ally (Mulgan 2023).
The geographical allocation of R&D towards the SDGs does not reflect the geo-
graphical areas with the highest needs for SDGs actions, considering that most of
the investment is in the middle- and high-income countries, with 90% of the SDGs
related to science, technology, and innovation work being published/patented in
high- and upper-middle-income countries (Mulgan 2023). Such investments are
also biased towards certain SDGs because, without correctors, the market favours
investments towards the needs of people that can afford to buy final products or
services, with little or no incentives to invest in non-profitable goals, like Goal 1, no
poverty, and Goal 10, reduced inequalities (Mulgan 2023). AI is implemented to
render more efficient linear models of production and consumption, which are not
sustainable.5 Overall, it can be argued that existing R&D and business models do
not invite the development of effective solutions for the developing world.
5
A linear model of production and consumption has been dominating over the past one and a half
century in the globe. “In the supply chain in this one-way model, the goods are manufactured from
raw materials in production processes, sold, used, and subsequently at the end of its lifetime as the
specific product is discarded as waste to landfill or incinerated. The raw materials are once
extracted from the nature, usually discarded at the end of the use of a particular product. This
model simply runs on a linear path and hence sometimes termed as linear model. Linear model
does not support environmental sustainability and resource efficiency” (Ghosh 2020).
16 F. Mazzi et al.
This represents a challenge and among others a risk of further exploitation of

low- and middle-income countries through an expansion of economic or techno-
logical dependencies (Ong and Findlay 2023).
As argued by Capasso and Umbrello (2023), market-driven big tech corporations
with their availability of data sets and a vast number of resources are able to influ-
ence political agenda and they provide services and entire infrastructures on which
several actors and the whole economic ecosystem depend (Capasso and
Umbrello 2023).
The political relevance of big tech companies can be exemplified by the case
reported by Adeshina and Aina (2023), concerning the use of digital technologies
for elections in Africa. Digital infrastructures are used for registration, drone satel-
lite images for monitoring electoral violence, and natural language processing
(NLP) to analyse radio and social media data. These data can be used to identify
trending electoral topics, fake news, social tensions, and misconceptions that cause
conflicts among citizens (Adeshina and Aina 2023). The concerns regarding control
and power of the digital means were worsened in the discussed case by the argu-
ments between political parties on biometric identification systems and by the belief
that the accreditation system was sabotaged before voting (Adeshina and Aina
2023). The issues of ownership and security of both platforms and data are crucial
to achieve fairness of elections (Adeshina and Aina 2023) for absent transparent
rules, companies might be economically incentivised to adopt a certain policy or
not. Also, the availability of such meanings could play a crucial role in communicat-
ing SDGs-related information to the public. At the same time, the governing mecha-
nisms of big tech companies are the object of debate. For example, Chomanski
(2021) doubts that regulating the private sector is the optimal solution, and proposes
action-guiding principles that could steer policy, such as the principle of Presumption
of Liberty (PoL). According to this principle, the burden should be on the propo-
nents of regulation to demonstrate that their proposed political solution will be an
improvement over the status quo in relevant respects (Chomanski 2021). Such
debate is outside the scope of the present chapter.
Different solutions and governance mechanisms could play a role in favouring an

alignment of incentives for funders to invest in AI for SDGs (Mulgan 2023). We
provide and discuss here some examples.
Sustainable finance can be defined as finance for sustainability, for it makes
explicit reference to the sustainability dimensions (in particular in line with the
Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement) and to the sectors or
activities that contribute positively to these dimensions (Migliorelli 2021). Specific
instruments could include blended finance, government-backed incubators and
accelerators, patient or concessional capital, funds and prizes, and public procure-
ment (Stephenson et al. 2023). The opportunity of developing innovative
technology finance instruments and of updating regulatory frameworks to create

“digital-friendly investment climates” (Stephenson 2020) is a first step needed to
orient investment incentives to encourage the uptake of sustainable finance solutions.
Over the past few years, the use of AI for sustainable finance has been increas-
ingly employed to address the SDGs with two major approaches: institutional and
societal AI for sustainable finance (Pashang and Weber 2023). Broadly described,
institutional AI for sustainable finance is used for activities such as environmental,
social, and governance (ESG) investing, while societal AI for sustainable finance
supports underbanked and unbanked individuals through financial inclusion initia-
tives (Pashang and Weber 2023). AI can support sustainable finance at the regula-
tory level: it can be used to (re)design enhanced financial governance systems
(Arner et al. 2020 as cited by Pashang and Weber 2023). However, AI for sustain-
able finance, including the use of the ESG, comes with at least two challenges: the
lack of uniformity of reports and KPIs, which results in the fragmentation of types
of impact assessments, which will be further analysed in Sect. 7. And the difficulties
of a transition towards an environmentally sustainable economy have inevitable
costs and opposing interests. To this end, it is necessary to implement policies,
incentives, and correctors to accompany such a transition6 (Arent 2017).
Capasso and Umbrello (2023) describe the concept of social licence to operate
for big tech companies as a tool to have legitimacy from internal stakeholders and
outside stakeholders and the greater community.7 A social licence allows for identi-
fying a business model as a social entity that goes beyond economic and market
considerations, and thus it is subject to public accountability and public control
(Capasso and Umbrello 2023). Social licences would also favour a proactive
approach to the SDGs, for they would favour a competition between big tech com-
panies to go beyond laws and regulations positioned within the legal system, to gain
credibility and social permission practices (Capasso and Umbrello 2023). Such a
model would guarantee more transparency from a societal perspective, as it would
build on structuring trust and consent of people and communities affected by the
business model’s actions at stake. Also, social licences can be an effective tool for
digital business models to ensure sustainable business growth (Capasso and
Umbrello 2023). Big tech has its users and consumer groups at their core, and social
licences would aim to create bilateral processes, through an ongoing dialogue with
users’ communities and relevant stakeholders.
Liiv et al. (2023) proposes the idea of a computer-aided method for corporate
sense-making and prioritisation of SDGs. This would overcome the current SDGs
assessment tools and methods, which are rather fragmented, and accompany the
incorporation of SDGs into business models. Liiv et al. (2023) theorises that novel
technologies and data analytics can be used for supporting the assessment process.
The research presents a customised version of Thomas Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy
6
On the topic (‘Towards a Green Energy Economy? The EU Energy Union’s Transition to a Low-
Carbon Zero Subsidy Electricity System – Lessons from the UK’s Electricity Market Reform’ 2016).
7
The concept of a social licence to operate relates to organisational studies and corporate social
responsibility aiming to integrate legitimacy in corporate strategy (Morrison 2014).
18 F. Mazzi et al.
Process, tailored for SDGs assessment to structure and organise decision processes
and facilitate group decision-making (Liiv et al. 2023). It shows that the proposed
process supports better SDGs-related internal communication and allows for identi-
fying new business opportunities and more efficient solutions for the goals that are
perceived as a priority by the company (Liiv et al. 2023).
Finally, AI can enable a circular economy by helping companies adopt and inno-
vate circular business models (Ghoreishi et al. 2023). Circular economy requires a
strong integration and connection of the value chain, which brings data economy at
the centre: data on resource flows, location tracking, monitoring condition and qual-
ity, real-time data gathering, processing of input-output flows, precise prediction,
lower production downtime, and optimisation of energy consumption are essential
(Hughes et al. 2021). AI and other technologies of Industry 4.0, such as the Internet
of things, enable the collection, storage, analysis, and processing of these data,
favouring resource and energy efficiency towards a sustainable circular economy
(Ghoreishi et al. 2023). In general, AI-enhanced products and services can tackle
environmental problems through independent interactions with their surroundings
and self-learning capabilities, which results in improved environmental perfor-
mance characteristics (Ghoreishi et al. 2023). And if adopted in the context of a
circular economy, they can help with circular value creation, in line with the SDGs
(Circular Economy and Sustainable Development 2019). However, as mentioned
above, in relation to sustainable finance, such a transition from a linear to a circular
business model requires costs and, in some cases, industrial conversion (Sharma
et al. 2021). As identified by Sharma et al. (2021), some of the main impediments
are capital requirements, higher initial cost for updating facility, risk and uncer-
tainty, and lack of institutional and legal support. The impediments are greater for
developing countries, due to a lack of public awareness, ambiguous policy frame-
works, and insufficient knowledge (Sharma et al. 2021).
4 AI and Communities
4.1 The Challenges
One of the areas of risk when developing AI for SDGs concerns its impact on vul-
nerable and marginalised people, who are at higher risk of harm from AI deploy-
ment (Ong and Findlay 2023). To protect local communities, countries should be
able to define for themselves development and progress, according to what they
value to retain and conserve in their domestic sphere (Ong and Findlay 2023).
However, the power asymmetry outlined above threatens to challenge any locally
engaged 2030 Agenda, for countries’ socio-economic structures and information
become reliant on AI technologies and consequently influenced by big tech deci-
sions (Ong and Findlay 2023).
AI can either empower or disempower community-relevant meanings. Ong

and Findlay (2023) argue that because of a revenue-based system, big tech models
might over-moderate or under-moderate content, impacting the space left for com-
munity meanings and magnifying its adverse effects in the Global South – for
instance, in Afghanistan and Myanmar, Facebook’s systemic lack of language sup-
port has allowed extremist language to flourish (Ong and Findlay 2023).
Moreover, data is not readily accessible and processible in all countries equally.
For example, Adeshina and Aina (2023) report that in underserved African com-
munities, some organisations, e.g. health centres, do not understand the usefulness
of data received and do not have organised infrastructure and data management
resources to utilise the available data (Adeshina and Aina 2023). This situation leads
most African researchers to use foreign-based data sets, which may not be a true
reflection of the particularities common to such communities (Adeshina and Aina
2023). For example, even within the same country, there are substantial differences
between rural and urban areas (Goralski and Keong Tan 2023).
Unequal access to technology and the Internet exacerbates discrimination in
areas central to various SDGs, such as developing countries and quality education.
The digital divide exists between and within countries, across different social
groups, and represents a problem in various sectors (Ong and Findlay 2023). For
example, over-reliance on AI for sustainable finance may lead to unintentional
harm, fostering exclusive inclusion (Pashang and Weber 2023). Due to the online-
only nature of digital services, the digital divide can be an obstacle to some groups’
financial resources (Pashang and Weber 2023).
AI can also create new realms of discrimination through data capture and claims
of ownership (Ong and Findlay 2023). Discrimination towards certain groups can
be perpetuated at different stages of the AI lifecycle. For example, at the design
stage, social inequalities can exclude social groups and communities. At the appli-
cation and deployment stage, AI-assisted technology could exacerbate existing dis-
criminations, for example, through colonial relationships of dependency (Ong
and Findlay 2023).
AI can help serve otherwise unserved communities and represent otherwise unrep-
resented groups. We report a proposed governance structure for AI in communities
(Ong and Findlay 2023), and two use cases of AI for communities, in education and
agriculture.
Ong and Findlay (2023) argue that governance for AI in communities can allow
communities to bargain for the responsible use of data and the sustainable applica-
tion of AI technologies. He identifies two structural elements, i.e. digital self-
determination and AI in community, as essential to achieving such governance (Ong
and Findlay 2023). Digital self-determination is possible in a safe digital space
where data subjects and their communities can easily and freely decide on the use
20 F. Mazzi et al.
of AI, access, visualisation, and management of their data, and where market play-
ers adopt practices towards data that preserve data subjects’ dignity (Remolina and
Findlay 2021). AI in a community represents a contextual method of deployment,
achievable by prioritising human recipients and creating relationships of trust
between AI deployers and users, so that negative consequences of tech rollout in
vulnerable economies can be minimised (Ong and Findlay 2023). AI as a partner in
community relationships sustains equitable social bonds through relationships of
trust. Individuals within these communities are recipients and active participants
empowered by digital self-determination. In this way, AI can create relationships
through the embodiment of the intentions of those who design and deploy the tech-
nology (Findlay and Wong 2021); and such communities and relationships are cho-
sen by their members (Ong and Findlay 2023). However, understanding of digital
self-determination requires careful consideration of the boundaries between public
good and self-determination, balancing between the risk of surveillance and a
“forced” representation on one side and exclusion and local ideology on the other
side. Such tension is not different from the one that arose in relation to contact trac-
ing applications, where public health concerns had to be balanced with individuals’
privacy (Kolasa et al. 2021).
We propose a non-exhaustive list of examples of how AI can help communities.
AI can be used to reduce the digital divide in relation to education. Education has
high costs, and some social groups cannot afford it in some countries where it is not
public (Goralski and Keong Tan 2023). Moreover, the digital divide impacts educa-
tion: India, for example, is home to 430 million children between the ages of 0 and
18, and the country has the largest population of children in the world (Goralski and
Keong Tan 2023).
AI could help by identifying the areas where education tools are most needed,
providing remote-learning solutions, and delivering interactive learning facilitated
by digitised devices, such as smart-boards, LCD screens, and multimedia videos, to
make the classroom interesting and engaging to students (Goralski and Keong
Tan 2023). Even in such use cases, when AI can help provide quality education, the
ethical debate concerning the power of those who have the information in the info-
sphere (Floridi 2014) and the need to preserve local culture and history to avoid a
colonial approach remain quintessentially human.
Another example is shown by Jaynes et al. (2023), arguing that community-
based education on and with AI positively impacts the ability of mountain commu-
nities to achieve their attainment of the 2030 Agenda’s Goals. The authors mainly
focus on the use of AI to adopt a “Student Engaged Learning Model” for mountain-
ous and rural populations, which have unique concerns and challenges that often
prevent them from being as engaged in technological adoption and development
(Jaynes et al. 2023). Balancing the concerns of these communities is not a simple
issue to address in the face of urban economic disparities and mentalities that divide
“developed” and “rural” areas in politics and economics (Jaynes et al. 2023).
The second use case concerns AI in agriculture. Agriculture is often essential to
rural communities, and sustainable farming solutions, for example, are of great
importance for the development of such communities. The multitude of
interconnected challenges such as scarce and stressed resources (land, water, soil
etc.), fluctuating outputs and increasing demands, changing weather and rainfall
patterns, and environmental pollution are all factors that can benefit from innovative
solutions. AI and digital technologies can help communities address the issues of
food insecurity, agricultural productivity, and higher yields for the coming future
(Ziesche et al. 2023).
“Smart agriculture”, intended as the integration of technologies like the Internet
of things (IoT), AI, robots, drones, etc., in agricultural production and management,
has the potential to narrow the supply-demand gap and optimise the use of natural
and human resources while allowing the maximisation of quality output (Ziesche
et al. 2023).
A use case of how AI is used for sustainable agriculture is represented by Deep
Planet, which utilises satellite imagery to allocate resources across the farmland
based on the monitoring results from satellite imagery (Efremova et al. 2023). The
proposed tool made possible to evaluate grassland, shrubland, and forest biomass
and to estimate the vegetation carbon stock over the conservancy and larger Masai
Mara Region (Efremova et al. 2023). This aligns with different goals, targets, and
indicators, including indicator 2.4.1 “proportion of agricultural area under produc-
tive and sustainable agriculture” (Efremova et al. 2023).
5 AI and Individuals
5.1 The Challenges
Among the various threats that individuals may perceive from AI, we focus on pri-
vacy and accountability concerns, as subfields of AI ethics, and on trust, intended as
the level of reliance on AI. The choice of these factors is based on the limitation of
the present chapter that focuses on the main themes emerging from the book chap-
ters. The topics of AI ethics, ethical principles governing AI, and ethical auditing
have been largely debated in recent years and are precursors of AI for SDGs, a sort
of necessary condition for the existence of AI for social good (Cowls et al. 2020).
Currently, neo-liberal individualism tags AI to economic growth (Ong
and Findlay 2023) and the lack of a uniform regulation risks to exacerbate forms of
ethics washing (Wagner 2018). Among various risks, individuals can be threatened
by personal data processing and related privacy concerns. Similarly, it is not clear
how to determine who should be held responsible for the recommendations and
decisions made by AI systems, raising concerns over accountability and interpret-
ability (Hickok 2021; Morley et al. 2021). These concerns in relation to AI are
partly governed in Europe by the General Data Protection Regulation, for example,
22 F. Mazzi et al.
through Art. 22, the right not to be subject to solely automated decisions.8 However,
due to its formulation, and to the lack of legal precedents immediately applicable,
the level of protection provided in relation to AI might still be vague from an indi-
vidual’s perspective.9 Therefore, individuals are confronted with ethical risks and
they might be left with no definitive answers. Such ethical concerns can, in turn,
influence the second challenge of AI and individuals, i.e. trust. Indeed, a lack of
legal certainty in case of unjust AI outcomes might hinder the acceptance of AI for
social good in society.
However, trust in AI does not only derive from unaddressed ethical concerns. AI
changes traditional relationship paradigms. For example, in healthcare, the relation-
ships between patients and healthcare professionals are different from the relation-
ship between patients and AI (Sirmacek et al. 2023). The acceptance of AI in
healthcare settings might depend on healthcare workers educating the patient about
the complexities of AI and its possible shortcomings (Sirmacek et al. 2023). This
could come with an additional burden for health professionals who may be required
to get additional training on the latest advances in AI, increasing their workload
(Sirmacek et al. 2023). Another challenge may lie with the patient accepting to
receive AI solutions and with healthcare professionals being confident to delegate to
AI, since their perception of AI is crucial for the successful implementation and
deployment of new systems (Sirmacek et al. 2023).
Governance and regulation can play an irreplaceable role in addressing AI-related

ethical concerns. Despite self-regulation and codes of conduct emanated by AI and
tech companies that could have played a significant role in setting standards and
gaining people’s trust, the efforts were insufficient and resulted in a missed oppor-
tunity (Floridi 2021b). However, pending policy action, existing frameworks can
guide designers towards the best practices for designing AI for social good (Capasso
and Umbrello 2023; Cowls et al. 2020). As mentioned above, the draft EU regula-
tion will fill a gap, for it contains substantial references to ethical principles and puts
the protection of the individual at the core (Benedetti del Rio 2023). Therefore, a
Brussels effect might be desirable to level legal certainty and set a high ethical stan-
dard for AI development for jurisdictions that share similar underlying values.
Nonetheless, the AI Act represents a first step, far from being exhaustive, as dis-
cussed in Sect. 2. The ethical challenges deriving from AI are likely to require other
regulations, such as sector-specific legislation, to protect workers (Ponce 2020).
8
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free move-
ment of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).
9
Article 22 refers to solely automated decision-making process, which renders the interpretation of
“solely” crucial to the determination of the scope of a right of explanation (Bayamlıoğlu n.d.).
A gradual introduction of AI solutions and the evidence of the benefits that they
can bring to individuals can help gain trust in AI. Here we report some use cases
from the chapters of the book.
AI can be used to provide legal identity for every individual (Forti 2023). The
recognition of identity represents a fundamental right that is not available to every-
one. Those who do not enjoy it are excluded from the socio-economic life and from
benefitting from public services (Forti 2023). Therefore, the implementation of AI
to provide legal identity to those who do not have it would constitute a benefit of AI
for individuals. Forti (2023) underlines that if lawmakers and regulators provide
appropriate human rights safeguards, AI could help accomplish SDG 16.9. At the
same time, we should not underestimate the ethical concerns deriving from the use
of AI to provide legal identities, for a large “amount of big data such as people’s life
history, health, behaviours, and interconnected networking will be exponentially
collected and operated to reveal each uniqueness and identity in the context of data
assimilation for commercial and governmental solutions. There are rich data on
their privacy which should be kept by strict regulation and legal backgrounds”
(Shibuya 2020). Moreover, it poses philosophical questions, for we are living an
information revolution that may have radical consequences on our self-understanding
and the constructions of our own identities (Floridi 2011).
AI in healthcare is essentially related to trust. The accuracy of AI can be tested
and proved gradually, from less to more invasive applications. Goralski and Keong
Tan provide a few examples, such as prioritising care to patients under the limitation
of resources such as medical equipment or hospital beds; estimating the probability
of having or risk of developing a medical condition given a patient’s family history
or own historical data and examinations; and monitoring patients and suggesting
possible follow-ups, treatments, or patient’s outcome based on the patient’s condi-
tion, its severity, its risk of degradation, and available alternative actions
(Goralski and Keong Tan 2023). Moreover, human revision represents an additional
safeguard for patients familiarising with AI-assisted practices (Goralski and Keong
Tan 2023).
6 Jobs and Skills
6.1 The Challenges
The positive outcomes of developing and deploying AI come with challenges con-
cerning human resources, and the case of AI for SDGs is no exception. We identify
a twofold challenge. On one side, AI has been perceived as a threat to human jobs
for a long time, stimulating research to develop prospects of AI’s impact on employ-
ment. On the other side, the increasing deployment of AI solutions requires human
capital with digital skills familiarity with AI. Such skills are not structurally pro-
vided to new generations by education systems.
24 F. Mazzi et al.
As stressed by Benedetti del Rio (2023), while regulating AI is an important step

towards the development of AI for social good, governments should also consider
the risks that the development of AI may have on the job market. Governments’ role
will be essential in managing the impact of AI on employment and delivering digital
skills through education systems at different levels. Both public and private sectors
should invest in AI education and programmes (Adeshina and Aina 2023). The chal-
lenge here relates to providing an education that should not be limited to individuals
who work as AI engineers or researchers, for a basic level of familiarisation with AI
and data will be increasingly needed. This creates a debate concerning the potential
need for new programmes for the school’s curriculum from the primary level, so
that the next generation will have some basic understanding of AI and its applica-
tion (Adeshina and Aina 2023).
Implementing AI-related education is also needed to address some of the chal-
lenges listed above, such as AI and communities. Digital skills should also be deliv-
ered in areas that would otherwise risk being left behind, and where the digital
divide could spread (Jaynes et al. 2023). However, the challenge often remains in
being able to employ these workers trained according to non-mountainous city poli-
cies in local communities where they cannot be adequately matched (Jaynes
et al. 2023). Moreover, it would be desirable to develop AI-related education pro-
grammes in remote areas that create a new pathway for local businesses and univer-
sities to secure emerging talent through direct-hire programmes via educational
training and other related projects (Jaynes et al. 2023).
The twofold challenge delineated above is of primary importance to limit unwanted

outcomes of deploying AI for SDGs. Therefore, solutions need to address that the
use of AI for SDGs does not (i) impact employment negatively, and consequently,
the level of poverty and inequalities, and (ii) underdeliver, because of a lack of digi-
tal skills in the offer of the job market.
As for the first challenge, studies on the impact of AI on employment present
different outcomes and predictions depending on the sector, the skills, and the
parameters identified (Bessen 2018; Acemoglu et al. 2020). On the one hand, the
issue of AI replacing humans for specific jobs has been perceived as a threat for a
long time (Rajnai and Kocsis 2017)10 but the demand for AI-related labour increased
dramatically in recent years (Alekseeva et al. 2021), not necessarily aligned with an
increase of the offer of AI-skilled workers. Also, if the population’s occupation and
source of income are managed, AI replacing jobs can improve the quality of life. It
can replace us in jobs that we are not willing to do, and it is creating and will
10
On the topic (‘Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Automation, Robotics, Future of Work
and Future of Humanity: A Review and Research Agenda: Computer Science & IT Journal Article
| IGI Global’ n.d.)
increasingly create new occupations (Floridi 2017). There is no black or white situ-
ation, but rather an opportunity to implement a governance mechanism that favours
a transition towards AI integration in different areas, without exacerbating inequali-
ties. As mentioned, the role of governments will be crucial in managing employ-
ment (Benedetti del Rio 2023).
As for the second aspect, governance is also crucial in implementing AI-oriented
education policies and ensuring that right-skilling programmes match skills supply
to skills demand (Stephenson et al. 2023). Moreover, there are different ways in
which AI can be used to facilitate the acquisition of digital skills. We provide two
examples: the first one, suggested by How et al. (2023), focuses on the fact that it is
difficult for educators or social scientists who are not trained in computer science to
code and implement AI algorithms or understand them. Therefore, they suggest a
user-friendly, low-code, human-centric probabilistic strategy that can democratise
AI usage, thus allowing analysts who are not computer scientists to use AI for social
good. The second one concerns the increasing inclusion of AI (specifically, AI for
SDGs) in cultural spaces, such as museums (Taurino 2023). Taurino (2023) illus-
trates how algorithmic art can help framing sustainable futures, arguing that pro-
moting algorithmic design diversity might positively impact inclusive innovations
in ethical AI. This, in turn, can stimulate people’s willingness to acquire digi-
tal skills.
7 Impact Assessment
7.1 The Challenges
Impact assessments are evidence-based procedures that assess a given factor’s eco-
nomic, social, and environmental effects. Since they provide a structure that allows
for monitoring and measuring the impact of specific actions, they can be crucial
tools to achieve the SDGs. AI and data-based impact assessment can deliver accu-
rate results. However, developing SDGs-related impact assessment is not straight-
forward. The interconnection between different SDGs at indicators and target levels
creates a high level of complexity (Efremova et al. 2023) (Mirghaderi 2023). It is
difficult to incorporate all the relevant considerations in algorithms: for example, in
finance (and not only), governance mechanisms must also confront the duality of
what is considered “good” (Pashang and Weber 2023). AI-driven solutions towards
ESG (environmental, social, and governance) factors can be useful to investors
when evaluating a firm’s sustainability activities. However, it should be noted that
the array of ethical, inclusion, and environmental factors are difficult to integrate
and could potentially compromise progress towards the SDGs (Pashang and Weber
2023). Also, accurate SDGs-related impact assessments require a vast amount of
data of different kinds that might not be retrievable. And even if retrievable, they
26 F. Mazzi et al.
need to be integrated and connected according to the connections between the

SDGs, through many layers.
Finally, sustainability-related impact assessments have been developed by differ-
ent stakeholders and in different contexts, but they lack homogeneity, for there is no
shared standard. The absence of shared meanings to measure impact hinders the
coordination efforts described in Sect. 2. Sustainability Impact Assessments ideally
should ensure equivalency through agreements on standards and certifications
(Stephenson et al. 2023).
Despite the objective difficulties in achieving a functioning and homogeneous

method to perform SDGs-related impact assessments, some solutions can help
improve the situation.
For example, AI can be used to design a space of action through the Doughnut
economics model. The Doughnut consists of two concentric rings: a social founda-
tion, to ensure that no one is left falling short on life’s essentials, and an ecological
ceiling, to ensure that humanity does not collectively overshoot the planetary
boundaries that protect Earth’s life-supporting systems. Prifti considers a third
dimension to include freedom of determination and choice (Prifti 2023). Using such
a model can help identify AI applications that may violate the ecological ceiling or
the social foundation, AI applications that support one threshold but violate the
other, and AI applications that support both thresholds but may violate human dig-
nity (Prifti 2023). The Doughnut model, as a conceptual representation of the idea
that the outcome of our activities should be subject to these constraints, is useful in
the context of impact assessment to design desirable spaces of action.
Efforts at measuring the use of AI for one SDG are promising. Gupta and Degbelo
(2023) provide an example through the analysis of the contribution of AI to support
the progress of SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities). They address the
knowledge gap by empirically analysing the AI systems (N = 29) from the AI×SDG
database and the Community Research and Development Information Service
(CORDIS) database (Gupta and Degbelo 2023). The analysis reveals that AI sys-
tems have indeed contributed to advancing sustainable cities in several ways (e.g.
waste management, air quality monitoring, disaster response management, trans-
portation management), providing a snapshot of AI’s impact on SDG 11, still inher-
ently partial yet useful to advance the overall understanding on the impact of AI
systems for the social good (Gupta and Degbelo 2023).
The required combination of data from different sources is a challenge, but solu-
tions can improve the situation. Sirmacek et al. (2023), for example, describe how
Earth observation satellites are now acquiring a massive amount of satellite imagery
with higher spatial resolution and frequent temporal coverage. These types of big
data represent an excellent opportunity to develop innovative methodologies, among
others, for urban mapping, for understanding climate change (Sirmacek et al. 2023),
and for sustainable agriculture, as mentioned in Sect. 3 (Efremova et al. 2023).

Moreover, creating a data catalogue (Spezzati et al. 2023) and an SDGs index
(Mirghaderi 2023) can help advance the data structure’s status quantitatively and
qualitatively for future impact assessments.
We should not perceive the acknowledgement of the interconnection between
SDGs only as a limit to achieving a perfect impact assessment, for it can help to
theorise positive connections and monitor them. For example, Garcia-Mico
and Laukyte (2023) focus on the use cases that evidence the lack of female health
data in developing AI-based medical solutions, explains the link between gender-
balanced AI tools in medicine and SDGs, and shows how more gender-balanced and
inclusive AI-based medical tools allow improving female health and other SDGs,
such as those related to good health, economic growth, innovation, and reduced
inequalities.
Finally, monitoring the impact of AI use cases in relation to the SDGs can be
made with different levels of granularity. The role of AI and IoT in monitoring sin-
gle applications contributes to creating a substrate of data that can be useful for
higher levels of analysis later. An example is provided by Dziri and Ezzedine (2023),
who describes a detailed architecture of a smart grid system aimed at preventing any
intrusion into water distribution systems and detecting pollution momentarily. Such
grids work with a monitoring system for water quality analysis based on machine
learning (Dziri and Ezzedine 2023). The data gained through such a system poten-
tially allow us to evaluate the energy consumption of the AI and the level of advance-
ment of the indicators concerning potable water.
8 Evaluation and Limitations
This section highlights an underlying “fil rouge” that connects the different topics,
being it an inhibitor of opportunities and an enabler of challenges. This obstacle is
the lack of agreement at the international level on shared principles, specifically
concerning the recognition of human rights.
There are strong connections between human rights and the objectives of the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the SDGs (Kaltenborn et al. 2020).
However, there was considerable disappointment that the SDGs had not reflected
the advice provided by global leaders and grassroots activists to keep human rights
central to the new development era (Winkler and Williams 2017). While debates
may persist regarding the merits of the SDGs approach, the SDGs and human rights
share a common centre in their concern for human happiness and well-being
(Collins 2018). Human rights norms, standards, and tools can help to inform and
guide actions towards these commitments, including how human rights monitoring
mechanisms can play a role in tracking progress and providing a space for account-
ability (Saiz and Donald 2017). However, the phrasing around the rights-related
28 F. Mazzi et al.
terms avoids recognition of the obligations of state and non-state duty-bearers and
fails to address rights as (legal) entitlements (Williams and Blaiklock 2016).11
Substantial international agreement on human rights together with recognition of
applicable international law would facilitate both AI governance and SDGs imple-
mentation. It can foster effective cooperation between both countries and stakehold-
ers and ensure individuals’ entitlement. It would generate protection of communities
by default and encourage individuals’ trust in AI governance and political action. A
substantial human-rights-first approach (as opposed to a superficial approach to
human rights that fails to empower the participation of those already left behind to
claim their rights, as described by Williams and Blaiklock (2016)) would facilitate
the introduction and the acceptance of new AI-related programmes and employment
solutions. It would stimulate the adoption of shared practices based on common
principles, including reports and impact assessment, that would, in turn, generate
more reliable, quality data. The lack of substantial recognition of applicable human
rights’ law can have multiple causes: the lack of political willingness (Vivero Pol
and Schuftan 2016), difficulties in communication (Khan and Mishra 2022), cul-
tural barriers (Izugbara et al. 2022), and the soft-law nature of some international
conventions on human rights (‘A New Dawn for the Human Rights of International
Migrants? Protection of Migrants’ Rights in Light of the UN’s SDGs and Global
Compact for Migration | International Journal of Law in Context | Cambridge Core’
n.d.), to name a few. Analysing the root of the problem is outside the scope of this
paper. Our contribution does not aim to provide a conclusive answer as to what
governance, ethical, legal, and social challenges and opportunities AI for SDGs ini-
tiatives poses; it has the goal to offer an overview of priorities to maximise the posi-
tive impact and minimise risks of AI for SDGs initiatives according to the authors
of the book.
We underline that further substantial recognition of international human rights
law by the relevant stakeholders is a key element to work towards the achievement
of the SDGs.
9 Concluding Remarks
We provided an overview of six recurring challenges that, if left unaddressed, can

hinder the adoption of AI for SDGs solutions, their scalability, and the ethical out-
come of their deployment. The enthusiasm towards AI for sustainability should be
balanced with a cautious attitude and a realist account. Nonetheless, identifying and
acknowledging difficulties should foster the search for feasible solutions. Thus, we
11
“Using the discourse of human rights but without reflecting the full intent of human rights pro-
motes a customary usage of the terms that undermines the meaning of ‘human rights.’ While this
cannot effect actual State obligations, it can have serious implications for people’s and duty-bear-
ers’ understanding of human rights entitlements, as well as for accountability and civil society
monitoring of human rights situations” (Williams and Blaiklock 2016).
presented and analysed each challenge with related opportunities and AI use cases
that can help solve the problem or, at least, improve it. However, our categorisation
leaves open questions that require further research, such as how to find a balance
between groups involvement and privacy preservation, how to interpret self-
determination, and how to envisage the creation of a Board to maximise the benefit
of AI for SDGs, to name a few. Finally, the paper identified an obstacle to the maxi-
misation of AI for SDGs implementations that is common to the six areas identified
in the chapter, i.e. the lack of agreement on human rights at the international level.
Many more steps are needed to maximise the benefits of AI for SDGs.
References
‘A New Dawn for the Human Rights of International Migrants? Protection of Migrants’ Rights
in Light of the UN’s SDGs and Global Compact for Migration | International Journal of Law
in Context | Cambridge Core’. n.d.. https://ezproxyprd.bodleian.ox.ac.uk:2117/core/journals/
international-journal-of-law-in-context/article/new-dawn-for-the-humanrights- of-interna-
tional-migrants-protection-of-migrants-rights-in-light-of-the-uns-sdgs-and-global-compact-
formigration/ 2C4F58FA0E47AB747CDE0BA855A6E4B5. Accessed 26 Apr 2022.
Acemoglu, Daron, David Autor, Jonathon Hazell, and Pascual Restrepo. 2020. AI and Jobs:
Evidence from Online Vacancies. Working Paper 28257. Working Paper Series. National
Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28257.
Adeshina, S.A., and O. Aina. 2023. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in SDG: An African
Perspective. In The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable Development Goals.
Springer.
Alekseeva, Liudmila, José Azar, Mireia Giné, Sampsa Samila, and Bledi Taska. 2021. The
Demand for AI Skills in the Labor Market. Labour Economics 71 (August): 102002. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2021.102002.
Arent, Douglas Jay, ed. 2017. The Political Economy of Clean Energy Transitions. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Arner, Douglas W., Ross P. Buckley, Dirk A. Zetzsche, and Robin Veidt. 2020. Sustainability,
FinTech and Financial Inclusion. European Business Organization Law Review 21 (1): 7–35.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-020-00183-y.
Bayamlıoğlu, Emre. n.d. The Right to Contest Automated Decisions under the General Data
Protection Regulation: Beyond the so-Called “Right to Explanation”. Regulation & Governance
n/a (n/a). https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12391. Accessed 17 Feb 2022.
Benedetti del Rio, V. 2023. Ethical AI – The European Approach to Achieving the SDGs Through
Artificial Intelligence. In The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable Development
Goals. Springer.
Bessen, James. 2018. AI and Jobs: The Role of Demand. Working Paper 24235. Working Paper
Series. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24235.
Capasso, M., and S. Umbrello. 2023. Big Tech Corporations and Artificial Intelligence: A Social
License to Operate and Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships in the Digital Age. In The Ethics of
Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable Development Goals. Springer.
Chen, Qi, Wei Wang, Kaizhu Huang, Suparna De, and Frans Coenen. 2021. Multi-Modal
Generative Adversarial Networks for Traffic Event Detection in Smart Cities. Expert Systems
with Applications 177 (September): 114939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114939.
Chomanski, Bartlomiej. 2021. The Missing Ingredient in the Case for Regulating Big Tech. Minds
and Machines 31 (2): 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09562-x.
30 F. Mazzi et al.
Circular Economy and Sustainable Development. 2019. Academic. https://doi.org/10.1016/

B978-0-12-815267-6.00006-2.
Collins, Lynda M. 2018. ‘Sustainable Development Goals and Human Rights: Challenges and
Opportunities’. Sustainable Development Goals, June, 66–90.
Cowls, Josh, et al. 2020. How to Design AI for Social Good: Seven Essential Factors. SpringerLink.
2020. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-020-00213-5.
Cowls, Josh, Andreas Tsamados, Mariarosaria Taddeo, and Luciano Floridi. 2021a. A Definition,
———. 2021b. ‘The AI Gambit: Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to Combat Climate Change—
Opportunities, Challenges, and Recommendations’. AI & SOCIETY, October. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00146-021-01294-x.
Di Vaio, Assunta, Rosa Palladino, Rohail Hassan, and Octavio Escobar. 2020. Artificial Intelligence
and Business Models in the Sustainable Development Goals Perspective: A Systematic
Literature Review. Journal of Business Research 121 (December): 283–314. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.019.
Dziri, J., and T. Ezzedine. 2023. Smart Control of Drinking-Water Grids Using IoT. In The Ethics
of Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable Development Goals. Springer.
Efremova, N., J. ConradFoley, A. Unagaev, and R. Karimi. 2023. Artificial Intelligence for
Sustainable Agriculture and Rangeland Monitoring. In The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for
the Sustainable Development Goals. Springer.
Findlay, Mark, and Willow Wong. 2021. Trust and Regulation: An Analysis of Emotion. SSRN
Scholarly Paper. Rochester. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3857447.
Floridi, Luciano. 2011. The Informational Nature of Personal Identity. Minds and Machines 21 (4):
549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-011-9259-6.
———. 2014. The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere Is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford
University Press UK.
———. 2017. Robots, Jobs, Taxes, and Responsibilities. Philosophy & Technology 30 (1): 1–4.
———. 2021a. Introduction – The Importance of an Ethics-First Approach to the Development of
AI. In Ethics, Governance, and Policies in Artificial Intelligence, Philosophical Studies Series,
ed. Luciano Floridi, 1–4. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81907-1_1.
———. 2021b. The End of an Era: From Self-Regulation to Hard Law for the Digital Industry.
Philosophy & Technology 34 (4): 619–622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00493-0.
Forti, M. 2023. A Legal Identity for All Through Artificial Intelligence: Benefits and Drawbacks
in Using Artificial Intelligence Algorithms to Accomplish SDG 16.9. In The Ethics of Artificial
Intelligence for the Sustainable Development Goals. Springer.
García-Micó T. G. and Laukyte M. 2023. Gender, Health, and AI: How Using AI to Empower
Women Could Positively Impact the Sustainable Development Goals. In The Ethics of Artificial
Intelligence for the Sustainable Development Goals, Springer.
Ghoreishi, M., L. Treves, R. Teplov, and M. PynnoÃànen. 2023. The Impact of Artificial
Intelligence on Circular Value Creation for Sustainable Development Goals. In The Ethics of
Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable Development Goals. Springer.
Ghosh, Sadhan Kumar. 2020. Introduction to Circular Economy and Summary Analysis of
Chapters. In Circular Economy: Global Perspective, ed. Sadhan Kumar Ghosh, 1–23.
Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1052-6_1.
Gill, Amandeep S., and Stefan Germann. 2021. Conceptual and Normative Approaches to AI
Governance for a Global Digital Ecosystem Supportive of the UN Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). AI and Ethics 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00058-z.
Goralski, M., and T. Keong Tan. 2023. Artificial Intelligence: Poverty Alleviation, Healthcare,
Education, and Reduced Inequalities in a Post-covid World. In The Ethics of Artificial
Goudarzi, Shidrokh, Mohammad Hossein Anisi, Nazri Kama, Faiyaz Doctor, Seyed Ahmad
Soleymani, and Arun Kumar Sangaiah. 2019. Predictive Modelling of Building Energy
Consumption Based on a Hybrid Nature-Inspired Optimization Algorithm. Energy and
Buildings 196 (August): 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.05.031.
Gupta, S., and A. Degbelo. 2023. An Empirical Analysis of AI Contributions to Sustainable Cities
(SDG11). In The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable Development Goals.
Springer.
Hickok, Merve. 2021. Lessons Learned from AI Ethics Principles for Future Actions. AI and
Ethics 1 (1): 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00008-1.
Holzinger, Andreas, Edgar Weippl, A. Min Tjoa, and Peter Kieseberg. 2021. Digital Transformation
for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – A Security, Safety and Privacy Perspective on
AI. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed.
Andreas Holzinger, Peter Kieseberg, A. Min Tjoa, and Edgar Weippl, 1–20. Cham: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84060-0_1.
How, M. L., Cheah S.M., Chan Y. J., Khor A. C., and Say E. M. P. 2023. Artificial Intelligence for
Advancing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): An Inclusive Democratized Low-Code
Approach. In The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable Development Goals,
Springer.
Hughes, Maria, Reetta Kohonen, Antti Lehtinen, Anu Mänty, Mika Sulkinoja Lauri Byckling,
Nina Ahola, Ella Tolonen, et al. 2021. ‘The Winning Recipe for a Circular Economy-What Can
Inspiring Examples Show Us?’
Izugbara, Chimaraoke, Meroji Sebany, Frederick Wekesah, and Boniface Ushie. 2022. “The SDGs
Are Not God”: Policy-Makers and the Queering of the Sustainable Development Goals in
Africa. Development Policy Review 40 (2): e12558. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12558.
Jaynes, T.L., B. Abdrisaev, and L. MacDonald Glenn. 2023. Socially Good AI Contributions
for the Implementation of Sustainable Development in Mountain Communities Through an
Inclusive Student Engaged Learning Model. In The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the
Sustainable Development Goals. Springer.
Kaltenborn, Markus, Markus Krajewski, and Heike Kuhn, eds. 2020. Sustainable Development
Goals and Human Rights. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30469-0.
Khan, Shabana, and Jyoti Mishra. 2022. Critical Gaps and Implications of Risk Communication
in the Global Agreements—SFDRR, SDGs, and UNFCCC: 3 Select Case Studies from Urban
Areas of Tropics in South Asia. Natural Hazards 111 (3): 2559–2577. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11069-021-05148-z.
Kolasa, Katarzyna, Francesca Mazzi, Ewa Leszczuk- Czubkowska, Zsombor Zrubka, and Márta
Péntek. 2021. State of the Art in Adoption of Contact Tracing Apps and Recommendations
Regarding Privacy Protection and Public Health: Systematic Review. JMIR MHealth and
UHealth 9 (6): e23250. https://doi.org/10.2196/23250.
Liengpunsakul, Subin. 2021. Artificial Intelligence and Sustainable Development in China. The
Chinese Economy 54 (4): 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/10971475.2020.1857062.
Liiv, I., E. Karo, and R.-M. Soe. 2023. Computer Aided Corporate Sense-Making and Prioritization
for SDGs. In The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable Development Goals.
Springer.
Migliorelli, Marco. 2021. What Do We Mean by Sustainable Finance? Assessing Existing
Frameworks and Policy Risks. Sustainability 13 (2): 975. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020975.
Mirghaderi, S.H. 2023. Artificial Neural Networks Predict Sustainable Development Goals Index.
In The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable Development Goals. Springer.
Mökander, Jakob, and Luciano Floridi. 2021. Ethics-Based Auditing to Develop Trustworthy
AI. Minds and Machines 31 (2): 323–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09557-8.
Morley, Jessica, Anat Elhalal, Francesca Garcia, Libby Kinsey, Jakob Mökander, and Luciano
Floridi. 2021. Ethics as a Service: A Pragmatic Operationalisation of AI Ethics. Minds and
Machines 31 (2): 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09563-w.
32 F. Mazzi et al.
Morrison, John. 2014. The Social License. In The Social License: How to Keep Your
Organization Legitimate, ed. John Morrison, 12–28. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.
org/10.1057/9781137370723_2.
Mulgan, G. 2023. Joined Up Thinking on How Artificial Intelligence Can Contribute to the
Sustainable Development Goals. In The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable
Development Goals. Springer.
Ong, L.M., and M. Findlay. 2023. A Realist’s Account of AI For SDGs: Power, Inequality and
Artificial Intelligence in Community. In The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable
Pashang, S., and O. Weber. 2023. Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable Finance: Governance
Mechanisms for Institutional and Societal Approaches. In The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence
for the Sustainable Development Goals. Springer.
Pol, Vivero, Jose Luis, and Claudio Schuftan. 2016. No Right to Food and Nutrition in the
SDGs: Mistake or Success? BMJ Global Health 1 (1): e000040. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmjgh-2016-000040.
Ponce, Aida. 2020. Labour in the Age of AI: Why Regulation Is Needed to Protect Workers,
SSRN Scholarly Paper 3541002. Rochester: Social Science Research Network. https://doi.
org/10.2139/ssrn.3541002.
Prifti, K. 2023. Missing Circles: A Dignitarian Approach to Doughnut Economics through
Artifical Intelligence Applications. In The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable
Rajnai, Zoltán, and István Kocsis. 2017. Labor Market Risks of Industry 4.0, Digitization, Robots
and AI’. In 2017 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Informatics
(SISY), 000343–46. https://doi.org/10.1109/SISY.2017.8080580.
Remolina, Nydia, and Mark Findlay. 2021. The Paths to Digital Self-Determination – A
Foundational Theoretical Framework. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester. https://doi.
org/10.2139/ssrn.3831726.
Saiz, Ignacio, and Kate Donald. 2017. Tackling Inequality through the Sustainable Development
Goals: Human Rights in Practice. The International Journal of Human Rights 21 (8):
1029–1049. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2017.1348696.
Sharma, Nagendra Kumar, Kannan Govindan, Kuei Kuei Lai, Wen Kuo Chen, and Vimal Kumar.
2021. The Transition from Linear Economy to Circular Economy for Sustainability among
SMEs: A Study on Prospects, Impediments, and Prerequisites. Business Strategy and the
Environment 30 (4): 1803–1822. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2717.
Shibuya, Kazuhiko. 2020. Conclusion. Digital Transformation of Identity in the Age of Artificial
Intelligence: 273–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2248-2_14.
Sierra, Leonardo A., Víctor Yepes, Tatiana García-Segura, and Eugenio Pellicer. 2018. Bayesian
Network Method for Decision-Making about the Social Sustainability of Infrastructure
Projects. Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (March): 521–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.12.140.
Sirmacek, B., S. Gupta, F. Mallor, H. Azizpour, Y. Ban, H. Eivazi, H. Fang, F. Golzar, I. Leite,
G.I. Melsion, K. Smith, F. Fuso Nerini, and R. Vinuesa. 2023. The Potential of Artificial
Intelligence for Achieving Healthy and Sustainable Societies. In The Ethics of Artificial
Spezzati, A., E. Kheradmand, K. Gupta, M. Peras, and R. Zaminpeyma. 2023. Leveraging Artificial
Intelligence to Shrink the Data Gap to Advance Research on the Sustainable Development
Goals. In The ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable Development Goals. Springer.
Stephenson, Matthew. 2020. How to Attract “Digital FDI” and Sustainable FDI for COVID-19
Recovery? SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3621464.
Stephenson, M., I. Lejarraga, K. Matus, Y. Mulugetta, M. Yarime, and J. Zhan. 2023. AI as a
SusTech Solution: Enabling Artificial Intelligence and Other 4IR Technologies to Drive
Sustainable Development Through Value Chains. In The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the
Sustainable Development Goals. Springer.
Taddeo, Mariarosaria, and Luciano Floridi. 2018. How AI Can Be a Force for Good. Science (New
York, N.Y.) 361 (6404): 751–752. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat5991.
———. 2021. How AI Can Be a Force for Good – An Ethical Framework to Harness the Potential
of AI While Keeping Humans in Control. In Ethics, Governance, and Policies in Artificial
Intelligence, Philosophical Studies Series, ed. Luciano Floridi, 91–96. Cham: Springer. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81907-1_7.
Taurino, G. 2023. Algorithmic Art and Cultural Sustainability in the Museum Sector. In The Ethics
of Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable Development Goals. Springer.
Tomašev, Nenad, Julien Cornebise, Frank Hutter, Shakir Mohamed, Angela Picciariello, Bec
Connelly, Danielle C.M. Belgrave, et al. 2020. AI for Social Good: Unlocking the Opportunity
for Positive Impact. Nature Communications 11 (1): 2468. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41467-020-15871-z.
Towards a Green Energy Economy? The EU Energy Union’s Transition to a Low-Carbon Zero
Subsidy Electricity System – Lessons from the UK’s Electricity Market Reform. 2016. Applied
Energy 179 (October): 1321–1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.01.046.
Truby, Jon. 2020. Governing Artificial Intelligence to Benefit the UN Sustainable Development
Goals. Sustainable Development (Bradford, West Yorkshire, England) 28 (4): 946–959. https://
doi.org/10.1002/sd.2048.
Visvizi, Anna. 2022. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):
Exploring the Impact of AI on Politics and Society. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland) 14 (3):
1730. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031730.
Wagner, Ben. 2018. ‘Ethics as an Escape from Regulation.: From “Ethics-Washing” to Ethics-
Shopping?’ in Being Profiled, edited by Emre Bayamlioğlu, Irina Baraliuc, Liisa Janssens, And
Mireille Hildebrandt, 84–89. Cogitas Ergo Sum: 10 Years of Profiling the European Citizen.
Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvhrd092.18.
Williams, Carmel, and Alison Blaiklock. 2016. Human Rights Discourse in the Sustainable
Development Agenda Avoids Obligations and Entitlements. International Journal of Health
Policy and Management 5 (6): 387–390. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2016.29.
Winkler, Inga T., and Carmel Williams. 2017. The Sustainable Development Goals and Human
Rights: A Critical Early Review. The International Journal of Human Rights 21 (8): 1023–1028.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2017.1348695.
Ziesche, S., S. Agarwal, U. Nagaraju, E. Prestes, and N. Singha. 2023. Role of Artificial
Intelligence in Advancing Sustainable Development Goals in the Agriculture Sector. In The
Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Sustainable Development Goals. Springer.
Joined Up Thinking on How AI Can
Contribute to the SDGs
Geoff Mulgan
Abstract This piece provides two frameworks for thinking about the relationship
between AI and the global goals. It argues that while AI in all its forms is likely to
play an important role in initiatives for achieving the SDGs, the focus in recent
years on individual AI applications risks leading to disappointment.
First, it situates the question within the broader issue of aligning global R&D to
the SDGs. It shares recent data on degrees of alignment and misalignment and the
scope for new arrangements to develop clearer pathways. These are emerging in
other fields – from food to energy – but AI, and the digital world more generally,
are behind.
Second, it situates individual AI tools within a framework for mobilizing intel-
ligence to address the SDGs in particular contexts – cities, regions and nations – and
shows the multiple useful roles different forms of AI can play.
Keywords AI · SDGs · Collective intelligence · Public policy
1 Background on AI for the SDGs and Changing

Landscapes of R&D
For many decades, AI was dominated by military research, surveillance (NSA and
equivalents), university research and some commercial investment. In the 2010s, the
scale of commercial research exploded. In 1960, a third of all global R&D was
funded by the US defence department. This helped it drive through a series of tech-
nologies which later had other uses – microprocessors, GPS, touch screens, space
launches and satellites. The equivalent figure in 2016 was 3.6%. In USA, the top 5
tech firms R&D investment is now 10 times bigger than the top 5 defence firms.
G. Mulgan (*)
UCL, London, UK

36 G. Mulgan
Indeed in 2019, the USA’s top five tech companies spent $106bn on R&D – more
than all of the EU’s governments combined. These have, de facto, become decisive
in the global governance of many areas of technology, increasingly joined by a
small number of Chinese firms, notably Alibaba, Tencent and Huawei.
By the mid-2015s, there was growing interest in AI for good and AI for the
SDGs, with a series of conferences, programmes and funds. These looked to the role
of AI for pest control, matching refugees and job offers, personalised education,
health and many other fields. Microsoft, for example, committed several hundred
million each year to ‘AI for Good’ projects. A recent survey concluded that there
were potential benefits from AI on 42 of the SDG targets (70%) while negative
impacts were reported in 20 targets (33%).
However, this was a study of potential impacts rather than existing ones, and cur-
rent ‘AI for Good’ projects are easily criticised as relatively low impact, non-
systemic and marginal to the continued drive to develop AI for commercial purposes
or military/security ones. Moreover, they often missed the more strategic issues
around data.
2 Misalignment of R&D/STI and the SDGs
One reason for this is a bigger disconnect between global research and the SDGs.
Jeff Hammerbacher, former head of data at Facebook, once commented that ‘The
best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads’. But
this is part of a much broader pattern. New research from the STRINGS project
(Steering Research and Innovation for Global Goals) shows the degree of misalign-
ment within nations and globally.
There are skews in terms of where R&D is done (with the vast majority in middle
and high-income countries – 90% of the SDGs-related Science, technology and
innovation work is published/patented in high- and upper-middle-income coun-
tries), where it is directed (with big skews within each field, such as the well-
documented skew in pharmaceuticals towards drugs that require repeat prescriptions
and in rich countries, a bias that has been partly remedied in recent decades) and
skews in how research is done (with a continued bias towards R&D in big firms,
universities, etc. and a relative disregard for more frugal and grassroots models, of
the kind that have grown up in Shenzhen, India and East Africa, for example). Using
STRINGS data, these misalignments can now be analysed at the country level. We
also know that investment is heavily concentrated. The five companies with the larg-
est IP portfolios that involve AI together own 14% of the total IP portfolio related to
AI, mainly through patents, and these same companies are also the top inves-
tors in R&D.
In some sectors, there have been some attempts to redress these imbalances
through partnerships, alliances and pooled budgets. CGIAR in agriculture is a strik-
ing example, in operation for over 50 years. GAVI – and offshoots like COVAX –
attempted a similar shift in pharmaceuticals, recognizing that existing R&D and
Joined Up Thinking on How AI Can Contribute to the SDGs 37
business models impeded the development of effective solutions for the develop-
ing world.
Digital industries have been slow to create anything comparable, defaulting to
cosmetic initiatives. This has also been true of AI and has encouraged the focus on
spot solutions rather than systematic shifts to the direction of R&D. However, for AI
as for other fields we lack even rough data on how well investment aligns with the
SDGs, and commercial activity is becoming more rather than less opaque.
In other fields there has been a growing interest in alternative pathways and
directions – options for shifting the whole direction of STI, e.g. away from reliance
on fossil fuels, or mass-scale agribusiness. Again, there has been much less equiva-
lent work on alternative directions for the 4IR and AI, with a focus instead on regu-
lations and restraints on cross-border data traffic rather than pathways, e.g. towards
either more government-controlled systems (using social credit systems); US com-
mercial models based on data harvesting; or models involving more citizen owner-
ship and control of data and more transparency over algorithms.
To address these problems, a minimum requirement is:
• Better data and analysis of current trends to document where investment is hap-
pening, what tasks it is being directed to and where the key gaps are.
• Constellations of funders more deliberately aligning funding and support in
fields such as AI for public health, AI for education or AI for agriculture. Here,
there are useful models to build on which allow for better cooperation between
funders and practitioners, including shared data.
• Pooled budgets – in relation to both food and vaccines, the world has learned that
pooling budgets can greatly increase impact, particularly if public, philanthropic
and commercial funding can be integrated. Again, AI is behind best practice.
• Shared governance – finally, there will be a growing need for shared rules and
governance arrangements either at regional or global levels. Despite some prog-
ress with initiatives, such as the GPAI, there has been very little serious action in
this respect so far, despite tentative discussion of global charters or rights.
3 AI in the Context of Intelligence for the SDGs
The second reframing proposed is to look at how AI can contribute to greater intel-
ligence for the SDGs, rather than focusing too narrowly on individual AI tools.1
Over the last few years, the UNDP and others have developed a way of thinking
about how to mobilise multiple forms of intelligence to aid the SDGs including use
of data from sensors, satellites or mobile phones and open innovation methods to
1
For a serious attempt at mapping the links between AI and the SDGs, using expert consultation,
see R. Vinuesa, H. Azizpour, I. Leite et al. ‘The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals’. Nature Communications 11, 233, 2020.
38 G. Mulgan
tap into new ideas. These break down the task of innovating around SDGs in a par-
ticular place into four main elements:
Understanding problems – here the key is to draw on a wide range of sources, from
evidence to data of all kinds. AI has a significant role to play in pattern recogni-
tion (e.g. pests, disease, mobility), and there are interesting models combining
collective intelligence, AI and data. These include Action Insight Data in Uganda,
the LICCI project on mobilizing tacit knowledge from farmers to improve cli-
mate change models2 and others coping with the broader NLP challenge of dia-
lects and minority languages, or indigenous languages in non-literate cultures
(e.g. adjusting BERT and BART for different languages). Another example
around human-wildlife conflict is using AI in the modelling of remote sensing
data and spatial and temporal characteristics of crop raiding, to predict and
map risk.
Solution seeking – here the key idea is to look for ideas and answers from a much
wider range of sources, whether from business startups or communities affected
by problems, inventors or other sectors, making use of tools such as open innova-
tion platforms, challenge prizes, search and recommendation functions, and new
forms of citizen science to find a wider range of solutions. Wefarm is a good
example that links over a million farmers in East Africa, allows them to post
problems by SMS, uses AI to find potential problem-solvers from within the
community and then shares this back. In this way, collective intelligence and
artificial intelligence support each other.
Decision-making – next comes more use of collective intelligence to guide deci-
sions and then help in implementation of policies. One example is the use of the
Polis AI tools in democracy to guide debates towards consensus.
Learning – finally, there is a continuous learning to make sense of patterns and
using evidence sources, such as Microsoft Graph, ‘what works centres’ and plat-
forms to provide feedback and peer learning.
A good example of this field is action on corruption, arguably vital for achieve-
ment of many other SDGs. There are interesting applications of AI in use, for exam-
ple, in Mexico, and in some cases collaborations with banks to use AI to spot
suspicious behaviour involving officials or politicians. India and South Africa have
interesting examples of using AI in tax offices.
Seen through this lens AI has many roles to play. But the great majority of seri-
ous tasks require combinations of human intelligence and AI and explicit frame-
works for weaving different types of intelligence together. This quickly becomes
apparent when detailed analysis is done of the potential of AI to contribute to spe-
cific SDGs.3
2
See https://licci.eu/ and https://thrish.org/
3
See, for example, R. Kwok, AI empowers conservation biology. Nature 567, 133–134 (2019).
4 From Supply Push to Demand Pull
The aim of these methods is to flip on its head the normal approach to technology.
Often new technologies – like ML or blockchain – seek out uses. Their designers
tend to become fixated on the method.
But an alternative approach starts with what intelligence is needed by actors –
whether governments, communities or businesses – and then works backwards to
bring together what they need, which is likely to include not only data, interpreta-
tion and prediction but also evidence on what works, peer knowledge and so on.
This leads to what have been called intelligence assemblies or collective intelli-
gence methods. Here the challenge is that few institutions systematically curate
intelligence of this kind. But early work is underway applying this thinking, for
example, to oceans, combining digital twins, forecasts and citizen engagement in
designing and implementing solutions. Key resources such as Copernicus are begin-
ning to move in this direction too.
In all of these cases, the key mindset step is to switch from asking ‘How can AI
contribute to the SDGs’ but instead to ask ‘How can we best mobilise intelligence
of all kinds to contribute to the SDGs, and what role can AI play within that broader
project?’
5 Climate Change, Data and AI
Many of the issues discussed so far become very apparent in relation to climate
change. Data and modelling have allowed us to know just how much our climate is
changing. For decades, the careful collection of weather data and temperatures in
the sea has fed models to analyse, predict and explain the effects of human activities
on our climate.4 But it remains unclear what role data and models of all kinds will
play in solving the crisis. They could play a big role – but only if we achieve some
big shifts in how data is managed away from the commercial proprietary models
that currently dominate our economies.
Digital things often appear good for the climate: if you Zoom to work rather than
commuting that saves on emissions. But that’s only half the story. Overall digital
and Internet activity accounts for around 3.7% of emissions, about the same as air
travel. In the USA data centres account for around 2% of total electricity use. The
figures for AI are much worse. According to one estimate, training a machine learn-
ing algorithm uses a staggering 626lbs of CO2, five times the lifetime fuel use of a
car and 60 times more than a transatlantic flight. Some forecasts expect these levels
4
See, for example, Jackie Snow, How Artificial Intelligence Can Tackle Climate Change, NAT’L
GEOGRAPHIC (July 18, 2019), https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/07/arti-
ficialintelligence-climate-change [https://perma.cc/4PJ2-HWPR].
40 G. Mulgan
of emissions to rise sharply.5 Blockchain, the technology behind bitcoin, is perhaps

the worst offender of all, with extraordinary energy use and climate impacts: Bitcoin
alone has a carbon footprint roughly equivalent to New Zealand.
Yet AI can be used to cut carbon emissions, with the biggest opportunities in
buildings, electricity, transport and farming. Electricity is probably most advanced.
It accounts for around a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions and is controlled by
relatively few companies with big networks. They’ve learned that AI is particularly
good for optimising things like electricity grids that have complex inputs – includ-
ing the intermittent contribution of renewables like wind power – and complex
usage patterns.6 One of Google Deepmind’s projects, for example, aimed to better
predict wind patterns, and thus generation of electricity, in the USA. AI can also
help with traffic flows or bringing much greater precision to the management of
agriculture, through monitoring and predicting weather or pest patterns.
But the digital industries have been slow to engage seriously. Apple was for years
notoriously uninterested in environmental issues – and like the other hardware firms
contributed to mountains of e-waste that result from the pressure to keep up with the
latest iPhone, iPad or Galaxy. Facebook has essentially been silent on environmen-
tal issues apart from belated actions like its recent support for a Climate Science
Information Center. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos announced in 2020 $10bn for environ-
mental groups, having previously been deafeningly silent on the issue. Bill Gates
has been more engaged – though with the typical tech view that innovation alone
will solve the problems. Microsoft has a somewhat better record, including serious
action to handle historic carbon emissions.
The comparison with the world of investment is striking. After years of pressure,
big investors reluctantly started to measure environmental impacts and carbon and
to shift how capital is deployed, pushed by prominent figures like BlackRock’s
Larry Fink and former BoE Governor Mark Carney. Investors are still pumping
huge sums into carbon intensive industries: but the debate has shifted.
So what would it take for data and AI to play a more central role in getting to net
zero? The fuel of AI is data and here is the first problem. Most of the data that shows
what’s happening energy grids, buildings or transport systems is proprietary, and
jealously guarded within companies. To make the most of it and train new genera-
tions of AI, it will need to be opened up, standardised and shared. A lot of work is
underway on this – including dashboards7 projects like Carbon Tracker using satel-
lite data to map coal emissions and the Icebreaker One project8 that aims to enable
5
AI the Next Big Climate-Change Threat? We Haven’t a Clue, MIT TECH. REV. (July 29, 2019),
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/07/29/663/ai-computing-cloud-computing-microchips
[https://perma.cc/5GMR-TQ6R].
6
David G. Victor, How Artificial Intelligence Will Affect the Future of Energy and Climate,
BROOKINGS INST. (Jan. 10, 2019), https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-artificialintelli-
gence-will-affect-the-future-of-energy-and-climate [https://perma.cc/AM3J-DTN8].
7
https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/C40-cities-greenhouse-gas-emissions-interactive-
dashboard?language=en_US
8
https://icebreakerone.org/mission/
investors to track the full carbon impact of their decisions. But these are still small
scale and fragmented, and it will ultimately be political will that opens this data up.
If it was organized more as a commons, then it could be used to commission AI
that would help whole cities or countries cut their emissions. There’s no shortage of
ideas, covered, for example, in a recent overview of uses of machine learning to
tackle climate change,9 which gives a flavour of what might be possible, and in
sources like the climate change and AI wiki.10
But that just gets us to the next challenge: who will own or govern the data or
algorithms? Here there is still a glaring gap. Over the next decade, we may need new
and different kinds of data trust11 to curate and share data, sometimes as public pri-
vate partnerships in fields like transport and energy (e.g. gathering smart meter data)
and sometimes as purely public bodies focused on research. The lack of such insti-
tutions is one factor why so many smart city projects, like Google’s Sidewalk Labs
in Toronto and Replica in Portland, fail, unable to persuade the public that they’re
trustworthy.
New rules will also be required. As indicated earlier, there is growing interest in
global charters of rights around AI. The EU is working on a comprehensive frame-
work for regulating AI, based on assessments of risk, and including bans on some
uses such as facial recognition or credit scoring, and China is introducing parallel
rules. One option will be to require data sharing – and powers for consumers to
share their data with a third party – as a default. Any private entity securing a public
license (like provision of a 5G network, Uber or electricity supply or a supermarket
getting local planning permission) would be required as a condition of that license
to provide relevant data in a suitably standardised, anonymised and machine-
readable form. These are just a few of the structural changes now badly needed to
build up the digital side of plans to get to net zero and achieve other environmen-
tal SDGs.
6 Conclusion
There has been a flurry of activity around AI and the SDGs but only limited impact
so far. One reason is that most of this is organized in separate and often small-scale
projects. We lack good data or analysis of the patterns and gaps. The key lesson of
the big platforms is that systematic organization of data – the underlying plumb-
ing – is vital for generating the greatest value from machine learning and other types
of AI. We need comparable orchestration of intelligence for the SDGs. And we need
increasingly to focus on the broader intelligence needs of the SDGs and to work
9
Tackling Climate Change with Machine Learning https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05433.pdf
10
https://wiki.climatechange.ai/wiki/Welcome_to_the_Climate_Change_AI_Wiki
11
G. Mulgan and V. Straub, The Ecosystem of Trust, https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/
new-ecosystem-trust/
42 G. Mulgan
backwards from these, rather than solely working forwards from available technolo-
gies. This more strategic approach is fairly mainstream in business but oddly miss-
ing in public and philanthropic efforts. Yet it’s usually wise to focus on the outcome
you wish to achieve as well as the potential of a particular technology or tool. This
is likely to be key to maximising the contribution of AI to the SDGs during the 2020s.
A Realist’s Account of AI for SDGs: Power,
Inequality and AI in Community
Li Min Ong and Mark Findlay
Abstract Responsible AI design and deployment in alliance with the Sustainable

Development Goals needs to be understood in terms of power positioning and
vested interests that precede and predetermine the sincerity of ‘AI for social good’.
A power analysis is employed to chart the asymmetries of knowledge/information
and control enabled by tech companies’ cyberpower, revealing the risks associated
with AI technology as another economic dependency regime disproportionately
falling on marginalised communities and populations in the Global South. Where
the values of tech are misaligned with societies’, this threatens the social and cul-
tural fabric that is vital for resilient societies.
The authors introduce the enabling vision of AI in community, proposing to dis-
perse power through the application of AI to contextualise technological sustain-
ability. Power held by Big Tech companies should be dispersed within recipient
communities through information sharing and sustainable engagement, so that com-
munities can determine what technology they need for the indigenous purposes they
value and prioritise. The notion of safe digital spaces through digital self-
determination provides the mechanism for community empowerment. With trusted
social bonding at the AI-human interface, AI in community offers a repositioning of
tech to serve communities and assist the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development.
This research is supported by the National Research Foundation, Singapore, under its Emerging
Areas Research Projects (EARP) Funding Initiative. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the views
of National Research Foundation, Singapore.
L. M. Ong (*) · M. Findlay

Centre for AI & Data Governance, Yong Pung How School of Law,
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

44 L. M. Ong and M. Findlay
Keywords AI in community · Big Tech · Digital self-determination · Inequality ·

Power · Techno-colonialism
1 Introduction
Our objective in this chapter is to provide a realist’s account of the use of artificial
intelligence (AI) technologies for social and economic development. We critically
appraise the techno-optimistic narrative that has dominated the global imaginary –
with buzz terms like ‘digital transformation’, ‘Industrial 4.0’, ‘pro-innovation’ and
‘big data’ symbolising economic and consequently social progress. Our approach is
to employ a power analysis to chart the asymmetries of knowledge/information and
control (particularly over data access and transaction) enabled by tech companies’
cyberpower when directed towards vulnerable economies or societies, and to chal-
lenge the dominant narrative of progress by injecting the essence of AI in commu-
nity. As has often been raised by decolonial AI commentators, the analysis to follow
implicates who designs the technology, who participates in the process, who deploys
the technology obtaining access to the valuable ‘big data’ and who is affected by AI
decision-making devoid of recipient engagement. Responsible AI design and
deployment in alliance with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) needs to be
understood in terms of power positioning and vested interests that precede and pre-
determine the sincerity of AI for social good. The emerging picture reveals the risks
associated with AI technology as another economic dependency regime dispropor-
tionately falling on marginalised communities and populations in the Global South.
The nature of tech power creates and embeds such relationships of dependency;
where the values of tech are misaligned with societies’, this threatens the social and
cultural fabric that is vital for resilient societies.
For the policymaker reading this chapter, our message is that while AI and data
have tremendous potential for humanity, sustainable development and structural
inequalities are fundamentally social issues and should be addressed as such. We
caution against buying into the techno-solutionist approach promoted by companies
without first robustly questioning its implications. Otherwise, ‘AI for social good’,
like AI ethics, becomes a mask akin to greenwashing in climate politics. We argue
that power held by Big Tech companies, through information sharing and sustain-
able engagement, should be dispersed within recipient communities, so that com-
munities can determine what technology they need for the indigenous purposes they
value and prioritise. The enabling vision of AI in community and concomitant path-
ways to sustainability are the original contribution offered in this chapter that quali-
fies the AI and SDGs productive alliance. In conclusion, the analysis offers
communitarian options that will enable AI to be part of the solution to SDGs
achievement and not, through neoliberal global economic infiltration, a covert
impediment.
A Realist’s Account of AI for SDGs: Power, Inequality and AI in Community 45
2 AI for Sustainable Development: The Hope, the Hype

and the Narrative
AI technologies are being deployed across many sectors, bringing about tremen-
dous benefits particularly in areas such as in healthcare (diagnostics and disease
surveillance) and public administration (e-government service delivery) (Smith and
Neupane 2018). AI can even be used in the agriculture sector (crop disease monitor-
ing) and have a role in fighting climate change through climate modelling and mea-
suring carbon emissions (Kaack et al. 2020). Given its potential widespread
application, there is a lot of hope invested in AI for social good, including in helping
to achieve the UN SDGs. Early studies however have already shown that this opti-
mism should be tempered as the potential impacts of AI on sustainable development
can be both positive and negative (Vinuesa et al. 2020).
Of concern in this chapter is the discriminatory frame in which AI is situated,
wherein vulnerable and marginalised communities are at higher risk of the negative
impact of AI deployment (Loo et al. 2021). This has also been recognised by the
World Bank, which in its 2021 development report emphasised that ‘Major inequi-
ties in the ability to produce, utilize, and profit from data can be found across both
rich and poor countries and among the rich and poor people within them’ and that
the ‘voice of low-income countries needs to be heard in the global debate on data
governance’ (World Bank 2021).
Yet, ‘AI for social good’ is a banner held up by tech companies: AI as the means
for tackling world challenges of pandemics, climate change and humanitarian cri-
ses.1 ‘Pro-innovation’ is the response by governments worldwide as a global AI race
is underway, but while governments may acknowledge the potential risks and harms
of AI technologies alongside its benefits, they have failed to elucidate a tight under-
standing of a ‘good AI society’ that connects human responsibility, cooperation and
values (Cath et al. 2018). This consequence is symptomatic of techno-optimism, a
hype or blind faith placed in technology, espoused by the powerful players in the
discourse, crowding out alternative innovation pathways that might meet the needs
of communities (STEPS Centre 2010).
This analysis is not a blanket social critique of AI technology nor its potential for
achieving good. Data that services and is managed through AI can be immensely
useful and critical for identifying inequalities in society. Rather, the analysis targets
a growing power asymmetry underpinning AI global expansion, what some might
describe more critically as a hegemonic project of Big Tech companies (Couldry
and Mejias 2021b; Whittaker 2021). If power accumulates and is concentrated in
the few tech giants (typically in Silicon Valley but also in China) which are multina-
tional organisations – it is hard not to imagine that they would assert their economic
1
The Big Tech companies have their own programmes: see, for example, Facebook (https://data-
forgood.facebook.com/), Google (https://ai.google/social-good), Microsoft (https://www.micro-
soft.com/en-us/ai/ai-for-good) and Intel (https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/
artificial-intelligence/ai4socialgood.html).
and political influence and priorities internationally primarily for market benefit.
This directly challenges the sustainable development goals, particularly when low-
and middle-income countries are in a relatively vulnerable position for exploitation
through an expansion of economic or technological dependencies. It is indisputable
that the Global South is lagging behind the Global North in its readiness for AI
implementation (Oxford Insights 2020), and with global AI expansionism, develop-
ing countries arguably value affordability and accessibility over any AI provider’s
social ideology (Unver 2021).
Eradicating inequality and fostering global cooperation are priorities of the
SDGs, especially as the world has struggled to cope with Covid-19 and climate
catastrophe looms. To achieve the SDGs in a sustainable way, a highly contextual
approach is required – countries need to be able to define for themselves what is
development and progress, aligned in terms of what they value to retain and con-
serve in their domestic sphere. The power asymmetry we have outlined however
threatens to challenge any locally engaged and owned 2030 Agenda.
if we continue blindly forward, we should expect to see increased inequality alongside
economic disruption, social unrest, and in some cases, political instability, with the techno-
logically disadvantaged and underrepresented faring the worst. (Smith and Neupane 2018)
3 Power, Inequality and Techno-solutionism
3.1 Power
It is impossible within this space to examine at length the dimensions of power held
by tech companies when compared with vulnerable recipient economies or societ-
ies. Tim Jordan’s theory of cyberpower provides a useful conceptual shorthand,
propagating cyberpower as the form of power structuring culture and politics in
cyberspace and the Internet (Jordan 1999). Within this framework Jordan examined
three dimensions of power: (i) power over the individual, (ii) power over the social
and (iii) power over the virtual imaginary. In this chapter, we focus on the second.
Important for our purposes is the nature of cyberpower (or technopower) and
how it creates relationships of dependency in the social. This was described by
Jordan in the following terms (Jordan 1999):
• First, technologies supporting cyberspace are constructed according to certain
social values but appear as things for use. The oscillation between social values
and things creates a power force.
• The structure of technopower is an ongoing spiral: As more information is gener-
ated in cyberspace, leading to information overload, this stimulates demand for
more tech tools. Offline societies then increasingly depend on and are affected by
these tools (cyberspace is the informational space of flows providing essential
services to informational socio-economies).
• This technopower spiral means greater freedom of action is afforded to tech peo-
ple in the context of increasing tech complexity, creating a cyber-elite that domi-
nates individuals’ choices.
In short, ‘Cyberpower of the social is structured by the technopower spiral and the
informational space of flows and results in the virtual elite’ (Jordan 1999). This
informational space is also profoundly unbalanced in power terms. Those stake-
holders operating with information deficit yield up power to the sources and prolif-
erators of data and information power.
In the same vein, power accumulates in Big Tech as countries’ information
socio-economies mature and become reliant on AI technologies; ‘as the scale of
such reliance increases, so will the impact of AI technologies on our shared values’
(Cath et al. 2018). For instance, those developing predictive models are ‘bestowed
with the power to decide what “correct” is’ in relation to social constructs like ‘good
health’ and ‘good eating habits’ (Birhane 2020), and leaked documents have shown
the adverse impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health and wellbeing
(Chappell 2021). The global pandemic had shed light on the extent of this reliance:
countries worldwide depended on Google-Apple’s contact-tracing technology
(Sharon 2020), while consumers turned to Amazon for hand sanitizer, face masks
and disinfectants (Palmer 2020) and governments like the UK and Canada relied on
Amazon to distribute home testing kits and medical equipment (Liu 2020).
Through its saturation and reach of massive social media platforms, AI-assisted
information tech can recreate meaning and priorities in the information transfer they
enable, overriding communities’ values (such as what amounts to offensive con-
tent) – values which often imbue a complex and nuanced understanding informed
by the respective culture of communities. As explained in the discussion of AI in
community below, AI-assisted information platforms and technologies can either
empower or disempower community-cherished meanings. Social media’s profit
incentive plays out on at least two levels: at a more granular level over-moderating
or under-moderating content based on what generates revenue, on the next level,
magnifying its negative effects in the Global South – for instance, in Afghanistan
and Myanmar, Facebook’s systemic lack of language support has allowed extremist
language to flourish (Ortutay 2021).
3.2 Design and Deployment of AI and Social Inequality
It is already largely recognised that digital divides and information asymmetries

exist between and within countries, and across various social groups (e.g. UN
Secretary-General 2020). This has entered the mainstream discourse, particularly as
the pandemic has also meant increasing reliance on the Internet for online educa-
tion. However, unequal access to the technology and Internet access has exacer-
bated discrimination in fundamental areas that are the concern of the SDGs. AI
potentially exacerbates pre-existing vulnerabilities and social inequities founded on
stark differentials in access to technology. AI also creates new realms of discrimina-

tion through data capture and claims of ownership and sovereignty. AI-assisted tech
surveillance in Covid-19 control policies, for instance, has advantaged technologi-
cally empowered communities, while the most vulnerable have borne the brunt of
oppressive personal restrictions and invasive AI applications (Loo et al. 2021).
At the initial design stage, social inequalities can be exacerbated when certain
social groups and communities are ignored and excluded from determining the pur-
poses and priorities for designing technology. For instance, children with disabili-
ties may face several barriers to taking advantage of educational opportunities
enabled by information communication technologies; such technologies and the
content they service and manage may need to be adapted for their specific use (UN
Secretary-General 2020). Even if certain technologies were designed with more
universal and tailored access and inclusion in mind, pre-existing social inequalities
around affordability could mean that technological systems instead perpetuate
exclusion, if contextual impediments to access are also not factored into design and
deployment. Another example of potential exacerbation of structural discrimination
is with digitised identification systems. While the systems might recognise the
importance of enhancing the inclusion of marginalised people, cost barriers and
complex paperwork could prevent the poor from getting registered, and women fac-
ing legal or customary barriers to obtaining identification may fall through the reg-
istration cracks (UN Secretary-General 2020).
At the application and deployment stage, AI-assisted technology could con-
sciously or inadvertently worsen social challenges. In the humanitarian sector, it has
been argued that digital technology and data practices facilitate power asymmetries
and recreate colonial relationships of dependency (Madianou 2019); the use of
AI-assisted technology has also created additional barriers to claiming asylum
(Ong 2021).
Where ageism is an issue, deployment contexts raise challenging social ques-
tions. For instance, while the use of robots in healthcare can create efficiencies and
address manpower shortages, over-reliance of care robots for the elderly may
instead create conditions of seclusion and undermine their dignity (UN Secretary-
General 2020).
The social lens is therefore crucial for understanding AI technology’s potential
for sustainable development, particularly when focused on data and classification,
so essential for the operation of machine learning in AI. AI is a computing tool
which heavily depends on data, but where data is essentially about human dignity
and life experience, such data also often represent and build on structural inequali-
ties related to gender, race or class (MacKenzie and Wajcman 1999) (cited in Joyce
et al. 2021). Consequently, AI technology could be understood ‘as a mirror for
social structures’, one which has reproducing and amplifying qualities (Larsson
2019). Further, ‘big data’ (and associated mass data sharing potentials) also masks
disparities in power among social groups and regions of the world (Sapignoli 2021).
Conversely, data that are missing, incomplete or prone to error are not always suf-
ficiently factored in to AI-based solutions and predictions (Sapignoli 2021).
Recognising that data classification is not a neutral exercise, it has been argued to be
a ‘deeply moral project often implicated in social stratification’ (Bowker and Star
1999; Fourcade and Healy 2013; Thompson 2016) (cited in Joyce et al. 2021).
Examining the market environment in which Big Tech companies operate, their
own business models will suggest that these companies are not incentivised for
human development, as illustrated by Zuboff’s concept of surveillance capitalism
(Zuboff 2019). Translating this into addressing equality and non-discrimination, it
could be argued that profit-driven logics by their nature target the masses and there-
fore by its market trajectory Big Tech cannot be expected to address inequities (e.g.
Birhane 2020), through say customised solutions addressing the needs of the
minoritised poor who exist outside profitable market predictions. Bearing this in
mind, as Whittaker has said, by paying attention to racial capitalism and structural
racism, tech critique can move beyond shallow notions of bias to an examination of
the centralising power of Big Tech (Whittaker 2021).
An examination of this AI divide, the ‘gap between those who have the ability to
design and deploy AI applications, and those who do not’ (Smith and Neupane
2018), is useful because power asymmetries are at the heart of discriminatory
inequalities. Power is relative as is equality – achieving equality is therefore through
power dispersal and balance. Consequently, when Big Tech companies propound
techno-solutionism (Katzenbach 2021), in that tech can solve complex social prob-
lems deeply embedded in history and traditional neo-colonial contexts, this needs to
be robustly questioned.
To achieve equality, data is needed to analyse and monitor the differentiated
impacts of new technologies; AI can catalyse this process. More importantly, as
stated in the UN Secretary-General’s report, access to new technologies ‘needs to be
accompanied by measures to promote and protect economic, social and cultural
rights, with a specific emphasis on poor and marginalized people to empower them
and build their capacity to take full advantage of those technologies’ (UN Secretary-
General 2020). Concepts such as participatory design, co-design and ‘design at the
margins’ are useful illustrations of communitarian engagement which AI in com-
munity embraces.
As will be revealed later, AI in community is a levelling up project. If it is recog-
nised (and actioned upon) that firstly, community priorities must motivate AI design
and deployment, and that secondly, the social bonds essential for sustainable com-
munities can incorporate AI, the logical conclusion is that technopower needs to be
dispersed across human recipients within those community relationships.
In the next section, we look at the growing concerns in the scholarship of digital
and techno-colonialism, before setting out the enabling vision of AI in community
and concomitant pathways to sustainability.
4 Tech Companies Heralding a New Digital Colonialism?
The scholarship on digital and techno-colonialism is useful to this chapter’s power

analysis as it illustrates not only how technopower can create and exacerbate
inequalities, but it also informs through a historical lens how a new global social
order might be created and shaped by the techno-elite. It has been warned that
developing countries are in a precarious position from specific risks in the deploy-
ment of AI – they are more vulnerable to disinformation, inequalities and human
rights violations (Pisa and Polcari 2019) (cited in Victor Manuel Muñoz et al. 2021).
Within this frame, initiatives by tech giants to provide Internet access in the Global
South may not be considered so much benevolent initiatives for sustainable devel-
opment, but rather techno-colonialism through creating relationships of dependency
over the ‘Next Billion Users’ (Birhane 2020).
Digital colonialism has been postulated by Kwet as enabled at the architecture
level of the digital ecosystem, through the centralised ownership and control of its
key pillars: software (code is law (e.g. Susskind 2018)), hardware and network con-
nectivity (Kwet 2019). Consequently, Big Tech corporations also control computer-
mediated experiences, ‘giving them direct power over political, economic, and
cultural domains of life’ (Kwet 2019). Facebook’s Free Basics service, for example,
could be a tool used to undermine local information sovereignty in the Global South
as the tech giants through control of critical information infrastructure have ‘the
power to regulate the press, speech, and association in foreign territories, as they see
fit’ (Kwet 2019).
Data colonialism has been identified as ‘an emerging order for the appropriation
of human life so that data can be continuously extracted from it for profit’ (Couldry
and Mejias 2021b). Thereby, human life is ‘annexed’ to capitalism (Couldry and
Mejias 2021b; Zuboff 2019) in the most fundamental data transactions, enabling
data extractivism in the Global South to fuel Global North economies (Freuler 2019).
The general consensus among AI decolonial authors is that the structural legacy
of colonialism lives on in terms of power, race and knowledge and that digital or
data colonialism has the same function as its historical colonialism: to dispossess.
The trajectory is that of exploring, expansion, exploitation and finally, extermina-
tion (in the form of race, class violence) (Couldry and Mejias 2021a). Notably,
researchers within Big Tech have also raised these concerns (Mohamed et al. 2020).
Consequently, the move by Big Tech companies to launch exclusive submarine
Internet cables is met with intense criticism (Freuler 2019). Content providers like
Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Amazon now own or lease more than half of the
undersea bandwidth (Satariano et al. 2019). Further, the political and social impacts
of this digital transformation or tech colonialism are likely to occur quickly, given
the rapidly evolving nature of digital technologies (Sahbaz 2019).
From a sustainable development standpoint, the import of technology by techno-
elites into the Global South without contextualisation can be particularly harmful
for technologically fragile communities as it means that the values and ideals of the
techno-elites are enforced through the mysticism of technological superiority
(Birhane 2020). Arthur Gwagwa illustrates how this could threaten the social fabric
of African communities: traditional social gatherings during the harvest could be
disrupted by the advent of automation in agriculture or food delivery apps (Gwagwa
et al. 2021).
4.1 Relationships of Dependency Affecting

Vulnerable Communities
The scholarship on techno-colonialism also sheds light on the relationships of

dependencies created in vulnerable communities where AI is deployed. For exam-
ple, with Facebook (now Meta) providing free access to a number of websites
including job boards and healthcare portals in Africa through its Free Basics initia-
tive, Facebook has now become the Internet for many Africans (Ajayi 2021). Despite
reactive campaigns such as #DeleteFacebook, arguably only those in privileged
positions in society can afford to bypass the free access services – for people par-
ticularly in marginalised groups such as the disabled, ‘social media is a lifeline – a
bridge to a new community, a route to employment, a way to tackle isolation’
(Ryan 2018).
In this way, power creates inequitable relationships of dominion over depen-
dency and obligation. AI deployment into ill-prepared and under-resourced social
and economic community locations, without conscious countermeasures to ensure
power displacement, will perpetuate a currently existing technological divide.
Domination of the digital ecosystem allows tech companies to maintain ownership
and control of the data society and build dependency into vulnerable communities
(Kwet 2019). It could simultaneously impoverish the development of local products
in the Global South (Birhane 2020), for most developing countries have limited, if
any, leverage over large Internet companies, given their small size and low income
per capita (Pisa 2019). Differential data collection capacity among countries can
also exacerbate the AI divide, as it makes developing countries less competitive and
lead to potential monopolisation of AI technologies (Muñoz et al. 2021). It has even
been argued that reliance on Big Tech can be seen in academia and research
(Whittaker 2021).
Big data also enables power centralisation: they include decision-making proto-
cols favouring the techno-elite and are as such implicated in global economic and
social inequality (Noble 2018) (cited in Joyce et al. 2021). What the relationships of
dependencies enabled by technopower also show is a state of embeddedness of
power. Its ‘capture of the commons’, argued Kate Crawford, has been enabled by
myths such as data collection as a benevolent practice, which obscures Big Tech’s
operations of power and their consequences (Crawford 2021). This means that cer-
tain technologies could be embedded in societies even before questions surrounding
who benefits from what sorts of innovation are asked, let alone answered
(Stilgoe 2019).
The global AI regulatory infrastructure is poorly equipped to address insidious
discrimination and the exacerbation of power divides. Based currently as it is on
‘top-down’ ethical compliance models, whose self-regulatory reach is in the hands
of Big Tech, it would be difficult even for the most egalitarian and aware sponsors
of AI and data expansionism to factor in countermeasures that negatively influence
their profitability. A more impactful regulatory frame, as is argued later, involves a
recognition of the value of data generated in vulnerable economies and, from this
position, a conscious repositioning of data management into the hands of

communities.
4.2 Problem with AI Ethics
Top-down, ungoverned self-regulation is the current AI regulatory model, operating

in societies and economies where neoliberal individualism tags AI to economic
growth (Bughin et al. 2018; Szczepański 2019). This style of ungoverned self-
regulation complements the imperial intentions of Big Tech by enabling an appear-
ance of responsible design and deployment while at the same time avoiding genuine
external accountability and explainability to vulnerable recipient populations and
economies. Further, this allows Big Tech to ‘co-opt and neutralise’ critique against
them by not only denigrating research they find threatening, but by funding their
weakest critics, ‘often institutions and coalitions that focus on so-called AI ethics’
(Whittaker 2021). In lower-income economies where often communal interests pre-
vail, understandings of regulation through ethical principles may vary from those
espoused in the current AI ethics model (Findlay and Wong 2022).
While Big Tech has recently called for regulation of their sector, this need not
necessarily come from altruistic intentions. As Jack Stilgoe puts it:
The optimistic version is that there is a reputational benefit that companies can get from
being ahead of the curve, [t]he pessimistic account would be that they are in reputational
trouble and that they need to take proactive measures. (Condliffe 2020)
Further, Big Tech can steer the course of regulation by perpetuating the narrative
that one cannot set the rules in regulation unless one understands the technology,
which Stilgoe says is how regulation is taken ‘out of the democratic domain and put
it in the technocratic domain’ (Condliffe 2020). Thus, given the pervasiveness of AI
technologies across sectors, some authors have even called for it to be recognised as
a public utility (Canazza 2016; Liu 2020).
Having illustrated to this point how the themes of power, inequality and techno-
colonialism interconnect, the next section looks at how the questions of innovation
are defined and driven, in the exploration of pathways to sustainability.
5 Pathways to Sustainability
5.1 Defining Innovation
The earlier sections on power and techno-colonialism demonstrate that if techno-

preneurs have control over defining both the problems and the solutions, starting
conversations on innovation with technologies rather than the problems they are
meant to address (Stilgoe 2019), this could put tech development and deployment
on a divergent trajectory from sustainable development. The already-identified

power dynamics shaping the direction of innovation could lead to the closure of
alternative deployment and application pathways, excluding marginalised groups in
vulnerable societies. Unsurprisingly the negative impacts of technology tend to
impact disproportionately on marginalised communities (STEPS Centre 2017).
While the range of pathways for the development of technologies can be wide, com-
mercial players (and others) push for an ‘optimal’ solution that best represents their
economic interests, no matter what might be ancillary objectives, obscuring alterna-
tives (STEPS Centre 2010). This underscores the importance of contextual
approaches to innovation, ensuring that innovation respects the needs of the recipi-
ent community and that progress enabled by tech is aligned with the communi-
ty’s vision.
So understood, ‘high tech’ will not be the best solution in every situation of
social and economic need, if unsustainable dependencies accompany such transi-
tions. For instance, in order to include marginalised communities in online social or
education initiatives, content creators may need to ensure that their html code is
built for slower speed connectivity (Armour 1997), despite the desire for cutting-
edge universalism.
Therefore, pathways to sustainability involve challenging narratives that ‘frame
issues of tech power and dominance as abstract governance questions that take the
tech industry’s current form as a given and AI’s proliferation as inevitable’
(Whittaker 2021). As the Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to
Sustainability (STEPS) Centre emphasised, the direction of innovation matters
because ‘it shapes the distribution of benefits, costs and risks from innovation’
(STEPS Centre 2010).
In this section, we borrow heavily from the research work of the STEPS Centre
and draw together the case for power dispersal and grassroots innovation.
5.2 Theories and Systems Change
In Transformative Pathways to Sustainability, a recent work done by the STEPS

Centre and their partners, the authors concluded that ‘in policy contexts, narratives
that appear to reduce uncertainty tend to be favoured and become dominant, even if
they are inaccurate, perhaps because they can lead to clearer plans for action (Roe
1994)’ (cited in Marshall et al. 2021). Thus, the framing of sustainability challenges
can ‘look entirely different depending on the perspective from which they are
viewed, recognising the social interactions and politics of knowledge that impact on
that perspective’ (Marshall et al. 2021).
Visiting a theory of change can help to influence what is feasible in particular
contexts of transition such as technological expansionism, thereby ‘leading to
amendments and guiding future interventions and initiatives’ (Marshall et al. 2021).
Theories of change in the scholarship can be classified into two heads (Ely 2021):
• Literature focussing on socio-technical system transitions, especially those

adopting a transition management perspective (Grin et al. 2010), whereby the
government is a central actor to bring about changes in a way that fosters key
sustainability objectives – in other words, controlled transitions.
• In contrast, transformations may be seen as ‘more plural, emergent and unruly
political re-alignments, involving social and technological innovations driven by
diversely incommensurable knowledges, challenging incumbent structures and
pursuing contending (even unknown) ends’ (Stirling 2015). Under this perspec-
tive, ‘the role of government is less central, and greater agency is attributed to
civil society’ (Ely 2021).
The discussion of AI in community which completes this brief review advocates
community empowerment in such processes of fundamental transition, where
trusted social bonds that sustain healthy communities can incorporate technological
incursion without sacrificing communal and individual integrity. To achieve this
outcome, a more equitable power dispersal must accompany technological expan-
sionism so that any unruly and unpredicted disruptions visited through technologi-
cal advance can be subsumed within a prevailing consciousness that technology is
just another pillar for community inclusion in development agendas.
Our concept of AI in community and digital self-determination (both outlined
below) aligns with the latter approach to transformation, observed by Ely. Drawing
from the UNDP’s Human Development Report 2020, ‘We must critically examine
the crucible of human values and institutions – specifically the way power is distrib-
uted and wielded – to accelerate implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development for people and planet’ (UNDP 2020). Further, human development is
urgently required to navigate challenges like the Anthropocene – ‘humanity can
develop the capabilities, agency and values to act by enhancing equity, fostering
innovation and instilling a sense of stewardship of nature’ (UNDP 2020).
Communities must play a central role in how AI and SDGs align for their benefit.
While government involvement has its place, as many states which will be targets
for SDG advancement are dysfunctional, focussing on communities is more likely
to distribute the benefits of innovation in a more equitable manner (recognising
sensitive social stratas at the local level) and bulwark against the risks of technologi-
cal discrimination which tend to fall disproportionally upon marginalised groups, to
ensure safe digital spaces for all in which to learn about how to enable technology
for indigenous needs. Further, while individuals may not be ‘the locus of truth, val-
ues or culture’ (Sloane and Moss 2019), communities built over time and genera-
tions can more readily prioritise values that need embedding, if these communities
are offered safe digital spaces in which to congregate and communicate. There is
insufficient space here to develop the mechanics of community empowerment and
activism beyond model assertions, but ethnographic and anthropological traditions
have long revealed the communication and assimilation networks that thrive even in
the simpler community frames.
What then is the pathway to sustainability where technological transition in vul-
nerable societies or communities is concerned? How can we integrate innovation,
technology and sustainability? While there is no one way to achieve this, we borrow
inspiration from the STEPS Centre’s 3D innovation agenda, which embrace three
pillars: directionality (of pathways towards specific sustainability objectives), distri-
bution (more equitable distribution of benefits, costs and risks associated with inno-
vation) and diversity (in socio-technical systems, in order to mitigate lock-in, build
robust and resilient systems and cater for seemingly irreconcilable perspectives on
value and sustainability) (STEPS Centre 2010).
As has been raised by others, the imaginary is crucial to inspire communities –
we need a positive vision to inspire systems change. Concepts like storytelling, deep
listening and knowledge co-production will be relevant for social sustainability in
any digital transformation that has community enhancement as a driver.
5.3 The Role of AI in Solutions
Once the risk of power dependency is front and centre, and recognition is given to
the commercial imperative that AI development is a market endeavour with wealth
creation at its heart, the location of AI in the community can stimulate a profound
reconfiguration of this new technological epoch. This chapter argues that through a
process of community empowerment employing AI as a tool for economic and
social power dispersal, we can achieve SDG 10. While tech is power, so are educa-
tion and communication (Jordan 1999). Along with these societal essentials for
embedding technology is the significance of personal and communal data as an
inducement for the promoters of AI to advance community inclusion and sustain-
ability above dependency when it comes to tech advancement for social good.
Not only are specific communal considerations essential for sustainable alliances
between AI and the SDGs, recognition of the compatible positioning of global com-
munity interests is also essential and will require critical re-appraisal on neoliberal
economic imperatives. Globalisation and technology have been captured by the
forces of neoliberal exclusionism that has produced an anxious and divided world
devoid of promise (Findlay 2021). Populist politics often shields neoliberal excess
behind a masked attack on globalisation and internationalism when in fact without
globalised engagement directed against neoliberal exceptionalism, the achievement
of the SDGs would be unlikely. Globalised AI2 and community-empowered data
management (which will be developed later in the discussion on digital self-
determination) can offer responsible engagement between data stakeholders at the
local-global interface and span profound divides currently retaining the value and
2
Global engagement provides the possibility to bridge (or maybe close) the AI divide if that
engagement is premised on the SDGs, equitable interaction and not dependency relationships
which are inherent in a neoliberal exclusionist notion of globalisation. Simply, power imbalances
can be exacerbated if globalisation is inextricably promoting wealth for the few. On the other hand,
globalisation engagement grounded in the SDG ideology will expose neoliberal imbalance.
valuing of AI as a North world domain, and data as the South world’s bargain-
ing chips.
Whether or not AI is a tool of neo-colonialists (the warning is useful), the tools
themselves can be used for positive social purposes, bridging inequalities. Accepting
the relevance of the metaphor ‘the Master’s tools can be used to break the Master’s
house’ (Couldry and Mejias 2021a), the same tools thus can be used for activism,
such as on social media platforms and information looping to open up understand-
ings of the scope of secondary data usage.
With information asymmetries fundamentally impeding actual and empowered
community engagement, the larger context for community repositioning of the tech-
nological locus is recognising the limits of knowledge including that of the chal-
lenges (STEPS Centre 2017). This builds the case for power dispersal towards
communities, so that not only will communities have access to data, but that
accountability and transparency in the operation of AI in specific communities will
be improved to make sure that once communities are in possession or have access
to the location, use and value of their data, such practical awareness would benefit
the underrepresented and not just the elites (Gwagwa et al. 2021, 3). Thus, limits of
knowledge notwithstanding, building robust and resilient systems of technological
application and engagement in this way is key to achieving sustainability objectives
for any proposed AI-SDG alliance. With this power dispersal, access to quality data
and use of various technological and AI developments would hold potential benefits
to the Global South in general (Birhane 2020).
Ideas like the cooperative ownership of AI by users (Scholz 2016) and democra-
tisation of AI3 can stimulate this conversation. Among other things, AI technologies
need to be affordable, user-friendly and explicable, robust and resilient and capable
of timely employment and provide solutions from which the participants can draw
informed choices (Findlay 2020). Having revealed AI’s divisive and reconciliatory
potentials, the following sections locate on communities in which AI can be
deployed to promote trusted social bonds for tackling inequality through greater
access to essential social data. What becomes apparent in our analysis: AI can be
part of the solution as well as the problem when approaching power asymmetries in
the global economy.
6 Digital Self-Determination
In the final sections of this brief coverage, the analysis presents a snapshot of two
concepts: digital self-determination and AI in community. Both are crucial for the
essential power dispersal which will guard against AI design and deployment
3
‘AI democratisation means making it possible for everyone to create artificial intelligence sys-
tems… potentially without requiring advanced mathematical and computing skills’ (Mark
Riedl, Georgia Tech, quoted in https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2021/11/access-for-all-the-
democratisation-of-ai/).
proliferating dependency relationships that challenge the SDGs, and for reposition-
ing vulnerable human recipients (data subjects), and their communities, to better
bargain for the responsible use of data and the sustainable application of AI tech-
nologies. Both concepts are complex but can also be simply understood. Digital
self-determination essentially requires the creation of safe digital spaces where (i)
data subjects and their communities can be empowered to access and manage their
data, while (ii) market players who are interested in the data approach it with genu-
ine respect for data subjects’ dignity (Remolina and Findlay 2021). This environ-
ment for data use may sound aspirational but as developments in open finance with
data portability at their core have revealed, big data harvesters, and those who oth-
erwise claim data ownership, are becoming more amenable to access regimes that
are less contested and conflictual (e.g. Remolina 2019).
Digital self-determination does not follow the language of data rights, data own-
ership nor data sovereignty. Instead, it offers a different contextual mode of data
governance that recognises that data are principally messages from humans to
humans and as such represent the digitising of life experience. As such, this pro-
vides the potential for integrating different types of knowledge, including social and
cultural elements, into technology development, so that once again technology
respects rather than overrides human values and judgement (Sloane and Moss
2019). Without the space to detail how safe digital spaces offer possibilities for data
subjects and their specific communities to manage and transact their data in particu-
lar transactional contexts (market or social), it is sufficient to see this as a conscious
dispersal over the power that data control offers.
From a market perspective, one reason why Big Tech might pragmatically be
attracted to an alliance with the SDGs Agenda is the prospect of massive data pools
that can be tapped under the guise of social good. However, if digital self-
determination is the governing regime which Big Tech (and its market expansion
imperative) is subjected to, then the human essence and dignity of data for
AI-assisted technologies will be preserved. Data will not be extracted out of its
human context and alienated from data subjects and communities during the data
gathering and classification stages, for example. Consequently, the power of the
data subject and his/her bargaining position in the market is elevated simply through
the recognition of their prominent position in data transactions. This vision is
realised through the creation of safe data spaces where personal data can be easily
and communally managed, empowering data subjects and their data communities.
Underpinning digital self-determination is the necessity that data subjects should
be made aware of who uses their data, when and how. The commodification of sec-
ondary data has massive market potential but unregulated it can deeply disempower
data subjects and their communities (Choo and Findlay 2021). In our centre’s earlier
work we have proposed regulatory models which are inclusive and participatory,
wherein vulnerable stakeholders such as data subjects can be empowered through
AI-information looping to better position their interests in the commodification of
their data, which after all is a massive profit motivation for AI expansionism (Findlay
and Seah 2020). Translated into the context of vulnerable economies or societies, if
the value of ‘data gold’ is more fairly distributed across data ecosystems, then
benefits can flow to all; the marketising of personal data can proceed but only inso-
far as it is compatible with the priorities and purposes of data subjects and their
communities.
Digital self-determination is gaining traction both as an ethical pathway for data
emancipation and a responsible process for data access. If it is built in as a precondi-
tion for Big Tech participating in AI expansionism, then a more communitarian
agenda for AI deployment and data use becomes possible.
7 AI in Community for Communal Empowerment
AI in community is then proposed as the deployment context that minimises nega-

tive consequences of tech rollout in vulnerable economies or societies by giving
priority to human recipient communities and fostering trustworthy human-AI rela-
tionships. Power dispersal is made possible by conceiving AI as a partner in com-
munity relationships which sustain equitable social bonds. By providing the
resources and capacity, AI can facilitate development without decimating the social
fabric which makes communities resilient in times of global crises.
The concept of AI in community relies on three assumptions:
• Sustainable communities are bonded through relationships of trust.
• Individuals within these communities as recipients, as well as active participants
as empowered by digital self-determination, of AI can create relationships with
the technology through the embodiment of the intentions of those who design
and deploy the technology (Findlay and Wong 2021).
• Such communities and relationships are chosen by their members.
In these straightforward statements reside many complexities (drawing from
Cotterrell 1997) which require elaboration if an active understanding of AI in com-
munity is to be fully appreciated. That said, it remains possible to employ the con-
cept for the purposes of arguing a communitarian location, purpose and
responsibility for AI.
AI in community endeavours to bridge the divide between design and deployment
using trust. It should not be assumed that AI in community reflects any discourse
about trustworthy AI or technology, or the certification of safety standards, even
though these may complement the initiation and maintenance of trust, along with
other more empathetic variables on which relationships of trust rely.
AI in community also encompasses the data on which AI technology depends.
Data subjects and their communities require safe digital spaces within those com-
munities to contemplate and foster relationships of trust founded on informed access
and management of their data. Much of the alienation that currently exists between
humans and AI technology can be traced back to fundamental information deficits
suffered by data subjects when confronting the purposes and priorities of AI
applications.
Proposed in this manner there seems little to argue against AI in community, until
the hegemony of AI and big data exploitation is confronted. One of the reasons why
ethics as a regulatory model is well supported by Big Tech is revealed in the expec-
tation that some form of ethical compliance will produce trust in recipient commu-
nities without the sponsors of AI technology and the harvesters of big data having
to divest any of their control and power over design, deployment and exploitation.
In this model, AI and big data remain attached to market imperatives, removed from
communitarian priorities.
AI in community is more than a physical repositioning; it is a repositioning of
priorities, purposes and values. If it were limited to the former, the power asymme-
tries currently underpinning AI-community interaction would not necessarily be
confronted. As long as individual recipients and their communities are viewed by AI
sponsors through a neoliberal market lens, as clients, customers and consumers, and
as data raw material for extractive market value, the purposes and priorities of the
community will be negotiated in market terms, with profit as an inextricable deter-
minant of deployment.
The essence of AI in community therefore requires a reversal of perspective. AI
is no longer viewed as something which is transplanted into communities based on
some external measure of benefit. Rather, AI in community envisages that individual
and collective recipients will determine whether (or not) AI applications fulfil their
purposes and priorities. The manner in which such determinations are made will
depend on the community members concerned and their need(s) to which AI and
big data could be directed. In recognition of knowledge limitations (Sect. 5.3), com-
munities may perhaps seek the assistance of technically competent advice (or other
options), but the choice remains with the community.
Trust comes into play when a community need has been identified and technical
solutions and deployment contexts or applications have been chosen. AI in commu-
nity requires that the community’s trust be informed, genuine and sustainable, even
if an AI application is accompanied by robust compliance to ethics. For such trust to
be generated and maintained, the community must be able to comprehend and dis-
criminate the functionality of AI and big data use (although this does not mean
that the community should trust technology beyond their understanding). Therefore,
the purposes and priorities behind what AI does are set by communities and the
responsibility to follow that through then rests with AI designers and deployers to
merit trust through the achievement of determined purposes and priorities.
AI in community is as such a recognition of the active role of technology and data
in the creation and maintenance of trusting social bonds with the community. In
other works on smart cities and storytelling, we propose the example of how
AI-assisted information technologies and communal, open data access can facili-
tate, curate, communicate and conserve the oral histories that are at the heart of
neighbourhood identity (Findlay and Ong 2022). In this example, by grounding
technology in the community, cultural storytelling can be embedded within the
urban knowledge infrastructure through communication and information pathways
enabled by AI technology and open data. In this way, AI and big data become
partners with the community to help strengthen its social fabric through historical
understanding of neighbourhoods as they transition in urban development.
We propose that AI in community stimulates a positive imaginary of AI for sus-
tainable development and that this vision is possible with the intrinsic capacity of
humans to cooperate through communities.
The human impulse to build relationships with others and to form communities is an inher-
ent driver of the success of new digital technologies. (Rheingold 2000)
8 Conclusion
As shown in this chapter, AI poses genuine risks associated with technological

dependencies, especially to vulnerable middle- and low-income economies or soci-
eties. Global technopower is a domineering force described by some as colonialism.
When the benefits to these marginalised economies or societies of such deployment
are said to override these debilitating risks, but in fact are differentially tied to profit-
driven deployment outcomes redolent in global trading and wealth disparities, then
sustainability is even more fragile (Smith and Neupane 2018). What needs constant
underscoring is that as technologies affect different people in different ways, the
design and application of new technologies will need to take into account individual
needs and unique deployment context (UN Secretary-General 2020, para. 21). This
task is urgent, as it is not just the rights and dignity of individuals at stake but the
social cohesion of communities.
Our proposal is to disperse power through the application of AI to contextualise
technological sustainability. More specifically, we employ the notion of safe digital
spaces through digital self-determination to provide the mechanism for community
empowerment. Having demonstrated the potential of digital self-determination and
revealed this through a particular application of AI in community, we have shown
that AI has the power to assist social sustainability. Although space does not permit
a full rehearsal of our work on AI in community and trusted social bonding at the
AI-human interface, we emphasise that AI in community offers a repositioning of
tech to serve communities and assist in the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development.
References
Ajayi, Rosemary. 2021. Deleting Facebook: In Africa, It’s Not so Simple. The Continent, November
27. https://media.mg.co.za/wp-media/2021/11/93a15cc3-thecontinentissue66v1.pdf.
Armour, Polly Jean. 1997. Standing Stones in Cyberspace: The Oneida Indian
Nation’s Territory on the Web. Cultural Survival Quarterly Magazine, December.
h t t p s : / / w w w. c u l t u r a l s u r v iva l . o rg / p u b l i c a t i o n s / c u l t u r a l -s u r v iva l -q u a r t e r l y /
standing-stones-cyberspace-oneida-indian-nations-territory.
Birhane, Abeba. 2020. Algorithmic Colonization of Africa. SCRIPTed 17 (2): 389–409. https://doi.
org/10.2966/scrip.170220.389.
Bowker, Geoffrey C., and Susan Leigh Star. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its
Consequences, Inside Technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bughin, Jacques, Jeongmin Seong, James Manyika, Michael Chui, and Raoul Joshi. 2018.
Notes from the AI Frontier: Modeling the Impact of AI on the World Economy. McKinsey
& Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/artificial-intelligence/
notes-from-the-AI-frontier-modeling-the-impact-of-ai-on-the-world-economy.
Canazza, Mario R. 2016. The Internet as a Global Public Good and the Role of Governments and
Multilateral Organizations in Internet Governance, July. https://www.academia.edu/36553078/
The_Internet_as_a_Global_Public_Good_and_the_Role_of_Governments_and_Multilateral_
Organizations_in_Internet_Governance.
Cath, Corinne, Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt, Mariarosaria Taddeo, and Luciano Floridi.
2018. Artificial Intelligence and the “Good Society”: The US, EU, and UK Approach. Science
and Engineering Ethics 24 (2): 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9901-7.
Chappell, Bill. 2021. The Facebook Papers: What You Need to Know About the Trove of Insider
Documents. NPR, October 25, sec. Media. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/25/1049015366/
the-facebook-papers-what-you-need-to-know.
Choo, Mabel, and Mark Findlay. 2021. Data Reuse and Its Impacts on Digital Labour Platforms.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3957004.
Condliffe, Jamie. 2020. Big Tech Says It Wants Government to Regulate AI. Here’s Why.
Protocol – The People, Power and Politics of Tech, February 12. https://www.protocol.com/
ai-amazon-microsoft-ibm-regulation.
Cotterrell, Roger. 1997. Law’s Community: Legal Theory in Sociological Perspective, Oxford
Socio-Legal Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:
oso/9780198264903.001.0001.
Couldry, Nick, and Ulises Ali Mejias. 2021a. The Costs of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing
Human Life & Appropriates It for Capitalism, February 27. https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=54_aftTZxWI.
———. 2021b. The Decolonial Turn in Data and Technology Research: What Is at Stake and
Where Is It Heading? Information, Communication & Society: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.108
0/1369118X.2021.1986102.
Crawford, Kate. 2021. Data. In The Atlas of AI, Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial
Intelligence, 89–121. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1ghv45t.6.
Ely, Adrian. 2021. Transformations: Theory, Research and Action. In Transformative Pathways
to Sustainability: Learning Across Disciplines, Cultures and Contexts. London: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429331930.
Findlay, Mark. 2020. AI Technologies, Information Capacity, and Sustainable South World
Trading. In Artificial Intelligence for Social Good. Keio University and APRU. https://apru.
org/apru-releases-ai-for-social-good-report-in-partnership-with-un-escap-and-google-report-
calls-for-ai-innovation-to-aid-post-covid-recovery/.
———. 2021. Globalisation, Populism, Pandemics and the Law | The Anarchy and the Ecstasy.
Edward Elgar. https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/globalisation-populism-pandemics-and-the-
law-9781788976848.html.
Findlay, Mark, and Ong, Li Min. 2022. ‘Reflection on Wise Cities and AI in Community: Sustainable
Life Spaces and Kampung Storytelling’. In Vol. 1. ASEAN Law Research Network E-Paper
Series. Centre for Commercial Law in Asia, Singapore Management University. https://ccla.
smu.edu.sg/sites/cebcla.smu.edu.sg/files/asean-perspective/2022-03/SMU%20ASEAN%20
Perspectives%20-%20Paper%2002%3A2022.pdf
Findlay, Mark, and Josephine Seah. 2020. Data Imperialism: Disrupting Secondary Data in
Platform Economies Through Participatory Regulation. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3613562.
Findlay, Mark, and Willow Wong. 2021. Trust and Regulation: An Analysis of Emotion. SSRN
Scholarly Paper ID 3857447. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.3857447.
Findlay, Mark, and Willow Wong. 2022. ‘Kampong Ethics’. In Reframing AI Governance:
Perspectives from Asia. Digital Futures Lab | Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. https://www.ai-in-
asia.com/06-kampong-ethics
Fourcade, Marion, and Kieran Healy. 2013. Classification Situations: Life-Chances in the
Neoliberal Era. Accounting, Organizations and Society 38 (8): 559–572. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.11.002.
Freuler, Juan Ortiz. 2019.The Shape of the Internet:ATale of Power & Money. Medium (Blog), October 2.
https://juanof.medium.com/the-shape-of-the-internet-a-tale-of-power-money-a08d01065bc0.
Grin, John, Jan Rotmans, and Johan Schot. 2010. Transitions to Sustainable Development: New
Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change. New York: Routledge. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9780203856598.
Gwagwa, Arthur, Deb Raji, and Natalie Kerby. 2021. Episode 3: Data & Automation. Public Books
101, May 31. https://www.publicbooks.org/episode-3-data-automation/.
Jordan, Tim. 1999. Cyberpower. In Cyberpower. Routledge.
Joyce, Kelly, Laurel Smith-Doerr, Sharla Alegria, Susan Bell, Taylor Cruz, Steve G. Hoffman,
Safiya Umoja Noble, and Benjamin Shestakofsky. 2021. Toward a Sociology of Artificial
Intelligence: A Call for Research on Inequalities and Structural Change. Socius 7 (January):
2378023121999581. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023121999581.
Kaack, Lynn H., Priya L. Donti, Emma Strubell, and David Rolnick. 2020. Artificial Intelligence
and Climate Change | Opportunities, Considerations, and Policy Levers to Align AI with
Climate Change Goals, December 16.
Katzenbach, Christian. 2021. “AI Will Fix This” – The Technical, Discursive, and Political Turn to
AI in Governing Communication. Big Data & Society 8 (2): 20539517211046184. https://doi.
org/10.1177/20539517211046182.
Kwet, Michael. 2019. Digital Colonialism: US Empire and the New Imperialism in the Global
South. Race & Class 60 (4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396818823172.
Larsson, Stefan. 2019. The Socio-Legal Relevance of Artificial Intelligence. Droit et Societe 103
(3): 573–593. https://www.cairn-int.info/journal-droit-et-societe-2019-3-page-573.htm?WT.
tsrc=cairnPdf.
Liu, Wendy. 2020. Coronavirus Has Made Amazon a Public Utility – So We Should Treat It Like
One. The Guardian, April 17, sec. Opinion. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/
apr/17/amazon-coronavirus-public-utility-workers.
Loo, Jane, Josephine Seah, and Mark Findlay. 2021. The Vulnerability Project: Migrant Workers
in Singapore. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3770485. Social Science Research Network. https://
doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3770485.
MacKenzie, Donald A., and Judy Wajcman. 1999. The Social Shaping of Technology. Open
University Press.
Madianou, Mirca. 2019. Technocolonialism: Digital Innovation and Data Practices in the
Humanitarian Response to Refugee Crises. Social Media + Society 5 (3): 2056305119863146.
Marshall, Fiona, Patrick Van Zwanenberg, Hallie Eakin, Lakshmi Charli-Joseph, Adrian Ely,
Anabel Marin, and J. Mario Siqueiros-García. 2021. Reframing Sustainability Challenges.
In Transformative Pathways to Sustainability: Learning Across Disciplines, Cultures and
Contexts. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429331930.
Mohamed, Shakir, Marie-Therese Png, and William Isaac. 2020. Decolonial AI: Decolonial
Theory as Sociotechnical Foresight in Artificial Intelligence. Philosophy & Technology 33 (4):
Muñoz, Victor Manuel, Elena Tamayo Uribe, and Armando Guio Español. 2021. The Colombian
Case: A New Path for Developing Countries Addressing the Risks of Artificial Intelligence.
Global Policy Journal. https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/articles/science-and-technology/

colombian-case-new-path-developing-countries-addressing-risks.
Noble, Safiya Umoja. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism.
NYU Press. https://nyupress.org/9781479837243/algorithms-of-oppression.
Ong, Li Min. 2021. Digital Borders: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence
on Refugees. Medium (Blog), July 22. https://medium.com/@caidg/
digital-borders-the-impact-of-artificial-intelligence-on-refugees-fae0a1353811.
Ortutay, Barbara. 2021. People or Profit? Facebook Papers Show Deep
Conflict Within. AP NEWS, October 25. https://apnews.com/article/
the-facebook-papers-whistleblower-misinfo-trafficking-64f11ccae637cdfb7a89e049c5095dca.
Oxford Insights. 2020. Government AI Readiness Index 2020. https://www.oxfordinsights.com/
government-ai-readiness-index-2020.
Palmer, Annie. 2020. How Amazon Managed the Coronavirus Crisis and Came Out Stronger.
CNBC, September 29. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/29/how-amazon-managed-the-
coronavirus-crisis-and-came-out-stronger.html.
Pisa, Michael. 2019. Developing Countries Seek Greater Control as Tech Giants Woo the “Next
Billion Users”. Center For Global Development, February 5. https://www.cgdev.org/blog/
developing-countries-seek-greater-control-tech-giants-woo-next-billion-users.
Pisa, Michael, and John Polcari. 2019. Governing Big Tech’s Pursuit of the “Next Billion
Users”. Center For Global Development, February. https://www.cgdev.org/publication/
governing-big-techs-pursuit-next-billion-users.
Remolina, Nydia. 2019. Open Banking: Regulatory Challenges for a New Form of Financial
Intermediation in a Data-Driven World. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3475019. Social Science
Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3475019.
Remolina, Nydia, and Mark Findlay. 2021. The Paths to Digital Self-Determination – A
Foundational Theoretical Framework. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3831726. Social Science
Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3831726.
Rheingold, Howard. 2000. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier.
Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Roe, Emery. 1994. Narrative Policy Analysis: Theory and Practice. https://doi.
org/10.1215/9780822381891.
Ryan, Frances. 2018. The Missing Link: Why Disabled People Can’t Afford to #DeleteFacebook.
The Guardian, April 4, sec. Media. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/apr/04/
missing-link-why-disabled-people-cant-afford-delete-facebook-social-media.
Sahbaz, Ussal. 2019. Artificial Intelligence and the Risk of New Colonialism. Horizons
| CIRSD. http://www.cirsd.org/en/horizons/horizons-summer-2019-issue-no-14/
artificial-intelligence-and-the-risk-of-new-colonialism.
Sapignoli, Maria. 2021. The Mismeasure of the Human: Big Data and the “AI Turn” in Global
Governance. Anthropology Today 37 (1): 4–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12627.
Satariano, Adam, Karl Russell, Troy Griggs, Blacki Migliozzi, and Chang W. Lee. 2019. How the
Internet Travels Across Oceans. The New York Times, March 10, sec. Technology. https://www.
nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/10/technology/internet-cables-oceans.html, https://www.
nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/10/technology/internet-cables-oceans.html.
Scholz, Trebor. 2016. Platform Cooperativism: Challenging the Corporate Sharing Economy. RLS-
NYC, January. https://rosalux.nyc/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/RLS-NYC_platformcoop.pdf.
Sharon, Tamar. 2020. Blind-Sided by Privacy? Digital Contact Tracing, the Apple/Google API
and Big Tech’s Newfound Role as Global Health Policy Makers. Ethics and Information
Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09547-x.
Sloane, Mona, and Emanuel Moss. 2019. AI’s Social Sciences Deficit. Nature Machine Intelligence
1 (8): 330–331. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0084-6.
Smith, Matthew, and Sujaya Neupane. 2018. Artificial Intelligence and Human Development:
Toward a Research Agenda, April. https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/handle/10625/56949.
STEPS Centre. 2010. Innovation, Sustainability, Development: A New Manifesto. https://steps-

centre.org/anewmanifesto/manifesto_2010/.
———. 2017. Innovation and Sustainability – The 3D Agenda. https://steps-centre.
org/4-technology/.
Stilgoe, J. 2019. Who’s Driving Innovation? New Technologies and the Collaborative State. Cham:
Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32320-2.
Stirling, Andy. 2015. Emancipating Transformations: From Controlling “The Transition” to
Culturing Plural Radical Progress. In The Politics of Green Transformations, 54–67. Routledge.
Susskind, Jamie. 2018. Future Politics: Living Together in a World Transformed by Tech. Oxford/
New York: OUP Oxford.
Szczepański, Marcin. 2019. Economic Impacts of Artificial Intelligence (AI). European Parliament
| European Parliamentary Research Service. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/
document/EPRS_BRI(2019)637967.
Thompson, Debra Elizabeth. 2016. The Schematic State: Race, Transnationalism, and the Politics
of the Census. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
UN Secretary-General. 2020. Question of the Realization of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
in All Countries: UN. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3870748.
UNDP. 2020. Human Development Report 2020. http://report.hdr.undp.org.
Unver, Akin. 2021. Motivations for the Adoption and Use of Authoritarian AI Technology –
Issues on the Frontlines of Technology and Politics. Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, October 19. https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/10/19/
motivations-for-adoption-and-use-of-authoritarian-ai-technology-pub-85510.
Whittaker, Meredith. 2021. The Steep Cost of Capture. Interactions 28 (6): 50–55. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3488666.
World Bank. 2021. World Development Report 2021: Data for Better Lives. https://www.world-
bank.org/en/publication/wdr2021.
Zuboff, Shoshana. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the
New Frontier of Power. 1st ed. New York: PublicAffairs.
The Potential of Artificial Intelligence
for Achieving Healthy and Sustainable
Societies
B. Sirmacek, S. Gupta, F. Mallor, H. Azizpour, Y. Ban, H. Eivazi, H. Fang,

F. Golzar, I. Leite, G. I. Melsion, K. Smith, F. Fuso Nerini, and R. Vinuesa
Abstract In this chapter we extend earlier work (Vinuesa et al., Nat Commun 11,
2020) on the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to achieve the 17 Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) proposed by the United Nations (UN) for the 2030
Agenda. The present contribution focuses on three SDGs related to healthy and
sustainable societies, i.e., SDG 3 (on good health), SDG 11 (on sustainable cities),
and SDG 13 (on climate action). This chapter extends the previous study within
B. Sirmacek
Smart Cities, School of Creative Technologies, Saxion University of Applied Sciences,
Enschede, The Netherlands
S. Gupta
Bonn Alliance for Sustainability Research, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
F. Mallor · H. Eivazi
FLOW, Engineering Mechanics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
H. Azizpour · H. Fang · I. Leite · G. I. Melsion · K. Smith
Division of Robotics, Perception, and Learning, KTH Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Y. Ban
Division of Geoinformatics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
F. Golzar · F. Fuso Nerini
Division of Energy Systems, Department of Energy Technology, KTH Royal Institute of
R. Vinuesa (*)
FLOW, Engineering Mechanics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

66 B. Sirmacek et al.
those three goals and goes beyond the 2030 targets. These SDGs are selected
because they are closely related to the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pan-
demic and also to crises like climate change, which constitute important challenges
to our society.
Keywords AI · SDGs
1 Introduction
In the past years, driven by the increased capacity in acquisition, storage, and pro-
cessing of data, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a disruptive technology,
affecting a broad scope of fields. As these capacities are only increasing, AI has
cemented its impact on society as a whole, and it is therefore expected to play a
crucial role in the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) pro-
posed by the United Nations (UN) (UN General Assembly (UNGA) 2015). As
pointed out by Vinuesa et al. (2020a), AI can enable the achievement of 134 out of
the 169 targets accompanying the SDGs. Nonetheless, AI can also act as an inhibitor
of 59 of the SDG targets. Therefore, special care should be taken when deploying AI
solutions at a large scale, and its impact (positive or negative) on society, economy,
and the environment should be carefully assessed. The ongoing coronavirus disease
(COVID-19) pandemic has shown the dangers that a major crisis can have on the
urban population health. Moreover, it has been a prime example of the use of AI and
big data, e.g., through the use of contact-tracing apps which have evidenced both the
positives (effectiveness) and negatives (privacy, ethical issues) derived from the use
of AI (Shahroz et al. 2021; Vinuesa et al. 2020b). In this regard, the current climate
emergency presents itself as the next major crisis to be faced by our species. In this
chapter, we focus our analysis on the impact of AI on the SDGs related to healthy
and sustainable societies, i.e., SDG 3 (on good health), SDG 11 (on sustainable cit-
ies), and SDG 13 (on climate action). The chapter is structured as follows: firstly,
impacts of AI adoption on health are assessed in Sect. 2. Secondly, in Sect. 3 we
look at the role of AI in the achievement of sustainable cities. Then, we focus our
attention to the possibilities enabled by AI when it comes to climate-action targets
in Sect. 4.1. Lastly, general conclusions regarding the effect of AI on achieving
healthy and sustainable societies are drawn, and an outlook is presented in Sect. 5.
2 Improved Health Through AI
2.1 Shortage of Healthcare Workforce
One main challenge within the health sector is the shortage of care staff, especially
in developing countries. In 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated
a global shortage of 4.3 million health workforce, identifying it as a crisis
The Potential of Artificial Intelligence for Achieving Healthy and Sustainable Societies 67
(W. H. Organization 2006). Later in 2016, a WHO report projected a shortage of

18 million health workers by 2030 (W. H. Organization 2016a). While a large part
of the shortage concerns lack of nursing staff, the lack of enough physicians and
tertiary-care staff is also remarkable, even within developed countries (I. M. Ltd
2020; O. Publishing 2018), which is exacerbated when considering the capacity
required for training specialists. Such a shortage is highly imbalanced against low-
and middle-income (LAMIC) countries globally and rural areas within the individ-
ual countries. Furthermore, a recent Lancet report estimated 5.7 million deaths per
year in LAMIC countries due to poor healthcare or lack thereof (Kruk et al. 2018).
In some countries, mitigating this shortage of staff would require hundreds of years
given the current medical-training infrastructure. The recent report by the UN High
Commission on health employment and economic growth (W. H. Organization
2016b) puts forward recommendations to mitigate these issues, one of which is
digital transformation of healthcare services. The AAMS report (I. M. Ltd 2020)
points to the promise of artificial intelligence (AI) to address the demand for spe-
cialists in various domains. Recent advances of AI techniques, especially deep
learning (LeCun et al. 2015), can help alleviate the severity of such shortage from
numerous aspects, including (i) prioritizing care to patients under the limitation of
resources such as care staff, medical equipment, or hospital beds; (ii) estimating the
probability of having or risk of developing a medical condition given a patient’s
family history or own historical data and examinations; (iii) monitoring patients and
suggesting possible follow-ups, treatments, or patient’s outcome based on the
patient’s condition, its severity, its risk of degradation, and available alternative
actions; (iv) more efficient and less costly education and training of additional care
staff; and (v) discovering more effective biomarkers and treatments.
The primary focus of AI research in medicine has, so far, been on the automatic
diagnosis of diseases and conditions using electronic health records (EHR) (Miotto
et al. 2016; Rajkomar et al. 2018) and imaging data (Bejnordi et al. 2017; Esteva
et al. 2017) or risk thereof based on patient’s own and family history (Suo et al.
2016) and radiological (Dembrower et al. 2020) or other types of imaging (Bora
et al. 2021; Saba et al. 2019). Moreover, AI models can help identify the most
appropriate course of action for possible follow-up examinations (Engstrom et al.
2021) and potential treatments (Xu et al. 2019); accordingly they can predict the
patient’s outcome (Jin et al. 2021). AI methods assisting the health staff with diag-
nosis, screening, and prognosis can lead to a relative reduction of their workload
(O. Publishing 2020); furthermore, a better risk model can help prioritize patients
and focus the limited resources to reduce mortality and morbidity rates. In fact,
patient triaging is an active area of research for the AI research in medicine with
promising results (Kwon et al. 2018; Liang et al. 2020). While AI-assisted diagno-
sis, screening, prognosis, and triaging have potential for global application in the
near future, there are other aspects where AI research has shown potential for a
slightly more distant future. One central area is in AI assisting the training of
healthcare staff (Shorten 2019) that can significantly reduce the cost of education,
increase the efficiency of the trainings, and crucially enhance the agility of care
training programs adapting to the emerging needs (W. H. Organization 2016b).
recommends reducing barriers to education which can be facilitated by AI. Finally,
the most notable future applications of AI to help with the shortage of care staff are
robotics surgery (Kinross et al. 2020) and discovery of more efficient and accurate
biomarkers (Wang et al. 2019) and treatments (Chen et al. 2018), especially in
light of AlphaFold’s recent breakthrough in computational biology (Jumper
et al. 2021).
2.2 One Health and AI
Pandemics such as COVID-19, Ebola, and cholera have grave consequences for
health, economy, and society. Unless we understand comprehensively what causes
them, they will emerge again and again. Usually, infectious diseases are often
unleashed by microorganisms such as viruses and bacteria having very diverse ori-
gins. The change in land-use type and surrounding ecosystems brings humans in
close proximity with wild species that could transmit unknown pathogens. Thus,
the possible way to prevent epidemics and pandemics is to realize the interconnec-
tion between human, animal, and environmental health, as it is covered under the
One Health domain. Target 3.3 of Agenda 2030 addresses aims to address concerns
related to epidemics and other communicable disease. However, the real challenge
is understanding the dynamics of the disease spread and how to better comprehend
the vast amount of interdisciplinary data sources from the areas of interface between
the health of humans, animals, plants, and the environment, fundamental to the One
Health approach (Cook et al. 2004; Kim and Cha 2021). AI is supportive of address-
ing multiple challenges faced by the field of One Health. For instance, antimicro-
bial resistance (AMR) relation to infectious diseases was considered as one of the
three One Health priorities during the tripartite (FAO-OIE-WHO) meeting of 2011
(W. H. Organization 2012). Recently, algorithms helped identify an antibiotic
called Halicin from a vast digital collection of pharmaceutical compounds (Stokes
et al. 2020). AI is also helping in the management of multidrug resistance by pre-
dicting infection risk, identifying the etiology and misuse of antibiotics, and esti-
mating the risk of emergence (Beaudoin et al. 2016; Giacobbe et al. 2020).
Researchers are already applying the AI capabilities to support clinical decision-
making processes, such as radiology, dermatology, pathology, and ophthalmology,
improving further the One Health infrastructure (Garcia-Vidal et al. 2019). AI is
also supporting prognosis-related applications using electronic health record-based
clinical decision support (Downing et al. 2019), generating alerts by an AI model
that provides an early warning. AI models are also supporting to predict deteriora-
tion and identifying possible pathogens and antibiotic susceptibility (Alam et al.
2014). At a broader level AI is also helping to link diverse remote-sensing data
sources for diverse One Health sub-domains (Chapman et al. 2018; Traore
et al. 2017).
2.3 GeoAI for Precision Medicine
AI and data-science techniques are supportive of developing efficient, accurate, and

productive knowledge for healthcare and medicine, also known as Health
Intelligence (HI) (Shaban-Nejad et al. 2018). AI is aiding in multiple aspects of HI
Health, such as in syndromic surveillance with social media (Zeng et al. 2021), at-
risk population prediction (Rajkomar et al. 2018), enabling mHealth services
(Istepanian and Al-Anzi 2018), and medical imaging analysis (Panayides et al.
2020). Integrating multiple data health information with spatial context, geospatial
artificial intelligence (GeoAI) represents a focused application of AI within health
intelligence to extract precise location-relevant information that helps in taking con-
crete action to improve health and well-being (Hu et al. 2018). GeoAI is helping to
integrate mobile health (mHealth) information in precision medicine by consolidat-
ing information on exposures to environmental factors such as air, noise, lumines-
cence, etc., with location to improve the spatio-temporal information for precision
medicine (Johnston et al. 2018). GeoAI further supports precision medicine with
geomedicine, a sub-domain that deals with individuals’ location history for disease
diagnosis and treatment (Boulos and Le Blond 2016). GeoAI capabilities help clini-
cians access patient’s health considering crucial aspects related to ambient expo-
sures to environmental risk factors of where they lived, worked, and traveled for
tailored prevention and treatment strategies. However, methodological challenges
concerning the limited availability of labeled training datasets, scarce standards and
protocols for integrating diverse data sources, and data-privacy concerns need to be
recognized for sustainable development.
2.4 Ethical and Societal Considerations
Previous studies have placed SDG 3 (on good health and well-being) in a unique
position, where AI can significantly contribute towards it achievement (Gupta et al.
2021; Palomares et al. 2021). Vinuesa et al. (2020a) found SDG 3 to be the goal
where AI could have the least inhibitory effect while showing a great potential to
bring several of its targets forward. However, the socio-ethical context of how and
where AI technology is used in healthcare systems could result in an increase of
inequalities between different population groups and nations, hence hindering its
capabilities to act as enabler of other SDGs, e.g., SDG 10 on reducing inequalities,
and/or progressing at a lower rate among population groups with, e.g., lower AI
literacy or ability to access the technology itself (Fenech and Buston 2020;
Wakunuma et al. 2020). Fenech and Buston (2020) investigated the perception of
healthcare professionals, technologists, ethicists, and patients about the challenges
of introducing AI into healthcare systems and they found that ethical, social, and
political questions were raised across various aspects: from the change within the
relationships between patients and healthcare professionals and their acceptance of
AI in a health setting, to the implications of collaboration between public and pri-

vate sectors and its regulation, while also going through the concerns of responsible
data handling, transparency, and its impacts on existing health inequalities. In line
with the shift of the patient-clinician relationship, there is concern regarding the
responsibility that healthcare workers will hold on educating the patient about the
complexities of AI and its possible shortcomings, or even in which cases it would be
required to notify that AI is being used at all (Gerke et al. 2020). This could also
come with an additional burden for health professionals that may be required to get
specialized training with the latest advances in the field (currently a relevant matter
of global discussion (E. Commission 2018; W.H.O 2019)), which might create a
rebound effect increasing their workload – becoming more evident in developing
countries due to the current digital divide (Zayyad and Toycan 2018). In this sense,
understanding of healthcare workforce’s perceptions of AI is crucial for a successful
implementation and deployment of new systems (Shinners et al. 2021) and also to
increasing their trust on AI since this may be an issue causing hesitancy in their
predisposition to use the technology, hence ultimately providing the right tool to
foster a partnership between the clinicians and AI (Verghese et al. 2018).
A major concern regarding the applicability of AI into healthcare systems is the
collection, handling, and use of patient data, due to the fact that these systems
require high amounts of personal health information to accomplish accurate results.
In their review of the ethics literature in AI applications for good health, Murphy
et al. (2021) found that three out of four common themes being discussed by
researchers revolved around the impacts of collecting and using data – namely, pri-
vacy and security, trust in AI applications, and adverse consequences of bias. People
may be reluctant with sharing health information if a secure and reliable process is
not in place to ensure privacy and an ethical use of it (Vinuesa et al. 2020b). For
instance, the risk of the data being hacked is a reason why patients may decide not
moving their health information to a digital, cloud-based format, but also the poten-
tial misinformation about the ways and application where their data is going to be
used (Luxton 2014; Murphy et al. 2021). The possibility of the same data collected
for healthcare systems to be valuable for unrelated applications of different corpora-
tions or governments is an important threat to users’ trust in these systems, such as
psychological data potentially being used for assessing prisoners’ recidivism or by
insurance companies to rate their investment risk (Luxton 2014). Then, a strong
legal framework is necessary to ensure transparency also on the boundaries to which
personal medical records could be used. An important example is how to handle the
proportionality of data sharing that is required to advance the development of AI
systems (Petersen et al. 2019), e.g., the amount or how long different stakeholders
are able to hold onto the data, as in the case of DeepMind giving access to 1.6 bil-
lion UK citizens’ medical records indefinitely to improve an application for manag-
ing acute kidney injuries (Powles and Hodson 2017).
In terms of the problematic of bias, there are different aspects that may play a
role when it comes to the entire life cycle and development of AI systems. The lack
of diversity in gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic background of the people
developing AI solutions is an important factor to address the bias in AI research and
development (West et al. 2019), together with the fact of close assessment of the
data used for training of the systems. There have been several examples of AI algo-
rithms that produce biased results because of certain groups of the population being
under-represented in the datasets (Buolamwini and Gebru 2018; Obermeyer et al.
2019; O’neil 2016; Zhao et al. 2017; Zou and Schiebinger 2018), which can increase
mistrust in these systems. Moreover, the interpretation given to the dataset in use
may also cause inadvertent biased predictions when the proxies that drive an algo-
rithmic decision are unfair towards a certain group. This has been the case for an AI
system used in the USA to determine patients that will require complex and inten-
sive future healthcare needs (Obermeyer et al. 2019). A black patient with the same
risk scores as a white one would be less likely to be enrolled into the program
because there exists a historic difference in the cost of healthcare between ethnici-
ties, which is the variable used for the prediction – cost is unbiased from an underly-
ing data point of view, yet an imperfect proxy that fails in taking into account the
important social perspective causing biased predictions (Obermeyer et al. 2019). In
this sense, there is an ongoing debate of the accountability and liability related to the
recommendations and decisions made by AI systems (Luxton 2014; Murphy et al.
2021; Vinuesa and Sirmacek 2021), and how to determine who should be held
responsible in the case of bad consequences of their outcomes – a topic discussed in
computer ethics research for decades (Dennet 1997).
3 Towards Sustainable Cities with the Help of AI
Rapid urbanization poses significant social and environmental challenges, including

sprawling informal settlements, increased pollution, urban heat islands, loss of bio-
diversity and ecosystem services, as well as making cities more vulnerable to disas-
ters. Therefore, timely and accurate information on urban areas and their changing
patterns is of crucial importance to support planning sustainable and climate-
resilient cities and communities. With its synoptic view and large area coverage at
regular revisits, satellite remote sensing has been playing a crucial role in mapping
the spatial patterns of urban areas and monitoring their temporal changing trajecto-
ries. Earth observation (EO) satellites are now acquiring massive amount of satellite
imagery with higher spatial resolution and frequent temporal coverage. These EO
big data represent a great opportunity to develop innovative methodologies for
urban mapping and continuous change detection. The main challenge used to be the
lack of robust and automated processing methods to extract valuable information
from the huge volume of EO data. Advanced mathematical methods with develop-
ment of AI architectures and processing platforms allowed rapid extraction of reli-
able information from such big data. In the following subsections we discuss the
most frequently used AI architectures and applications in order to bring solutions
for the sustainable development of cities aiming towards climate adaptation.
3.1 AI for Extracting Climate-Related Indicators from Cities
Urban areas are responsible for creating heat islands which cause very high ecologi-
cal stress to the environment. This stress is not only caused by the urban areas but
also by the surrounding areas even if they are not occupied by human activities. This
phenomenon is known as urban heat island (UHI) effect (Manoli et al. 2019). For
accurate identification of the heat island sources and the environmental changes
within the urban areas, many IT-infrastructured (also known as “smart”) cities have
been putting efforts and resources to collect a good amount of data which might be
helpful to understand the stress factors. Thus in many smart cities, citizens, govern-
ment institutions, industry, and scientists share data for the benefit of all (this rela-
tion is also known as “Quintuple Helix model” (Carayannis et al. 2012)). Obviously,
this leads to a great amount of data collection and the need for machine-learning
(ML) or artificial-intelligence (AI) models which can be used for understanding the
climate impacts and develop preparedness aligned with the SDGs. AI can enable
various applications to support cities. Figure 1 shows the AI-based applications
which may have the most potential to provide immediate benefit for climate-related
observation and preparedness. There might be even more applications which can be
achieved by AI algorithms; however, herein we keep our focus on mapping, predic-
tive modeling, generative modeling, and explainability applications. In the follow-
ing subsections, we will discuss each of these application areas in detail.
3.1.1 Mapping
For observing climate adaptation of large areas in sustainable manner, the most
frequently used data comes from satellite imaging. Satellite remote sensing allows
us to collect data and information about earth surface, oceans, and the atmosphere
at several spatio-temporal scales in a timely, regular, and accurate manner (Yang
et al. 2013). Satellite data help us understand the climate system generally and it
might help to identify ways to adapt urban regions for the drastic impacts of climate
change. Various organizations like NASA, NOAA, ESA, and JAXA use satellite
data to monitor greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, weather patterns,
Fig. 1 The most

frequently needed
application areas of AI for
observing climate
adaptation of urban areas
vegetation health, melting of glaciers and polar ice, bleaching of coral reefs, ocean
acidification, changes in wildlife migratory patterns, and many other environment
indicators. When it comes to urban areas, such maps are useful to identify changes
of the urban structures, vegetation, agriculture, air quality, surface temperature, and
so on. Besides satellite imagery, it is also possible to collect data about urban regions
using airborne sensors and other in-situ Internet-of-things (IoT) sensors. Higher-
resolution data achieved from such resources might enrich the information given in
the maps as well. In Fig. 2, we provided some of the valuable information which can
be extracted and visualized in urban maps to observe their climate adaption. AI
algorithms can help with the following areas:
• Automatic identification and mapping of trees (Pibre et al. 2017)
• Early recognition of forest fires (Zhang et al. 2021b)
• Measuring the earth surface temperature and predicting the urban heat island
impacts (Khalil et al. 2021)
• Detecting roads and traffic density (Boukerche et al. 2020)
• Creating 3D building models (Wichmann et al. 2018)
• Understanding agriculture health for food security (Lakshmi and Corbett 2020)
• Understanding soil health and properties (Motia and Reddy 2021)
• Observing water qualities (Theyazn et al. 2020)
• Observing air pollution (Ayturan et al. 2018)
• Predicting and mapping air flow (Guemes et al. 2021)
• Analyzing and merging IoT data (Allam and Dhunny 2019)
Trees Predict I and indicator changes

Predictive Models
Forest fires Building early warning systems (smoke detectors)
Surface temperature
Making high resolution data from low resolution measurements
Roads
Predicting sensor measurements of an area which hasn’t real sensor measurements
Generative Models
Buildings Creating what-if scenarios
Agriculture Creating good/bad examples as a suggestion tool

Mapping
Soil
Anomaly detection
Water
Explaining correlations between various IoT data
Air pollution
Interpretible models
Explainability
Air flow
Explaining cause/effect
Biodiversity
Explaining bias
IoT
Teaching important indicators to humans
Fig. 2 Additional application areas where AI can help for developing climate-adaptation applica-
tions for urban areas
There are, of course, more application areas where AI algorithms help with creating
maps which are useful to understand the sustainable development needs and to pro-
vide opportunity to create further action plans. However, it is challenging to address
all of them; therefore, we kept our focus on the most-frequently focused applica-
tion areas.
3.1.2 Predictive Models
One of the most impactful features of AI is its capability to help with building effec-
tive predictive modeling algorithms. AI models can allow fitting predictive models
for data which have high numbers of degrees of freedom and exhibit non-linearities
(Heaviside et al. 2016). Long short-term memory (LSTM) for instance (an artificial
recurrent neural network architecture used in the field of predictive modeling) is
able to store information over a period of time. In other words, LSTM networks
have a memory capacity for both long- and short-term periods of data. This charac-
teristic is extremely useful when we deal with time-series data. LSTM models can
decide which time-series information to remember and which information to dis-
card while creating the predictive model and making future predictions. Thus, such
AI models are more robust than the earlier mathematical models (Hochreiter and
Schmidhuber 1997). Scientists have found opportunities to use such advanced AI
models for observing climate adaptation of urban areas. Advancements of AI, there-
fore, allowed prediction of future heat island impacts (Khalil et al. 2021), water
security (Vulova et al. 2021), and further climate-adaptation goals for the future.
3.1.3 Generative Models
AI might yield further applications for SDG 11 with its generalization capabilities.
To this end, a special AI structure called generative adversarial network (GAN)
learns deep representations without extensive annotated training data. They achieve
this by deriving backpropagation signals through a competitive process involving a
pair of networks. The representations that can be learned by GANs may be used in
a variety of applications, including image synthesis, semantic image editing, style
transfer, image super-resolution, and classification (Creswell et al. 2018; Jabbar
et al. 2021). In the context of climate adaptation of urban areas, generative models
are frequently used for data augmentation, which helps to create labels for other
deep-learning applications (Howe et al. 2019). They are also found useful for creat-
ing pixel-based and accurate semantic segmentations without seeing so many exam-
ples (Collier et al. 2018) and for creating super-resolution images from course
satellite-based observations (Wang et al. 2020b).
3.1.4 Explainability
It is possible to use explainable AI (XAI) and interpretable AI (also known as “inter-

pretability”) methods to make the AI models and their results truly interpretable for
general audience and provide further insights into the action goals of the policy
makers (Vinuesa et al. 2020a). As an example of using the interpretability methods
in the context of the SDGs, in an early study Vinuesa and Sirmacek (2021) illus-
trated that such interpretability methods could be used for tracking poverty in urban
areas using satellite images and CNNs as developed by Jean et al. (2016). This work
essentially identifies features such as night-light intensity, roofing material, distance
to urban areas, etc., to predict the average economical consumption per capita and
day. Vinuesa and Sirmacek (2021) showed that adding interpretability to this model
would help to really understand the influence of each parameter on the outcome,
yielding a more robust and useful tool to track poverty and coordinate actions. In
fact, the symbolic representation may help to understand which of these factors
should be supported or suppressed to shift the poverty situation of the region to a
better level.
3.2 Non-intrusive Evaluation of Air Quality in Urban Areas

Through AI
When it comes to SDG 11 (on sustainable cities), we will focus on some relevant
applications, including those aimed at extracting urban-development and
environment-biodiversity indicators using fully automated AI methods with remote
sensing and other IoT data collected from smart cities. These indicators provide
opportunities to (i) effectively monitor SDG 11 indicator 11.3.1 on land-use effi-
ciency; (ii) observe the alignment of smart cities with other SDGs; (iii) have early
abnormality-detection possibilities when the indicators appear to be outliers; (iv)
better understand which urban development and which environmental indicators
provide the best models for observation of smart cities; (v) create realistic scenarios
to know which urban-development indicators make a positive impact on the align-
ment of the smart city with the SDGs; and (vi) create disaster scenarios to actually
know and be prepared for the cases of observing unexpected indicator values.
Another area where AI has great potential for SDG 11 is the development of robust
non-intrusive-sensing methods to be able to more accurately determine the pollu-
tion levels and regions of extreme temperature in urban areas. It is important to note
that around 90% of the population in the European Union (EU) were subjected to
pollution levels exceeding those recommended by the World Health Organization
(WHO) between 2014 and 2016 based on data by the European Environment
Agency (EEA). It is estimated that these pollution levels produce around 800,000
premature deaths per year in the EU (Lelieveld et al. 2019). When it comes to
extreme temperatures, the UHI phenomenon (Manoli et al. 2019) mentioned above
was connected with around 70,000 deaths in Europe during the summer of 2003
(Heaviside et al. 2016). The great potential of AI in this context is further supported
by the fact that currently available approaches for this are not accurate enough
(Carpentieri 2013), and the EU is introducing the use of predictive models for
pollutant-concentration measurements (EC Air Quality Framework Directive 1996).
Through flow prediction it is possible to provide, based on limited information,
information about the temporal and spatial dynamics of the complete flow field (or
certain relevant sub-sets of the field), up to a certain level of accuracy. One approach
to perform the prediction is to first decompose the flow into spatial basis functions,
such that only their temporal dynamics needs to be predicted. This can be accom-
plished by means of a well-known procedure, the proper orthogonal decomposition
(POD), which was introduced by Lumley in the context of turbulent flows (Lumley
1967). This methodology basically decomposes the spatio-temporal velocity signal
into spatial modes and temporal coefficients. Certain studies have considered varia-
tions of this technique, for instance the extended proper orthogonal decomposition
(EPOD) (Boree 2003), to perform predictions of the flow based on sparse pressure
measurements (Hosseini et al. 2015). In the EPOD framework, so-called extended
velocity modes can be defined by combining information from the measured pres-
sure and velocity signals, thereby allowing predicting the velocity field from pres-
sure readings. Certain properties of the EPOD were employed by Hosseini et al.
(2016) to predict the wake of a wall-mounted obstacle (representing a single simpli-
fied building) from pressure readings on its leeward side. Note that if all the possible
extended modes are used for the reconstruction, the EPOD method is equivalent to
a linear stochastic estimation (LSE) of the predicted quantity (Boree 2003). It is
however important to note that the EPOD framework essentially considers a linear
relationship between the measured and predicted quantities, which is insufficient to
obtain accurate predictions given the complexity of the turbulent flow in urban envi-
ronments. This was evaluated by Mokhasi et al. (2009), who reached the conclusion
that it is possible to obtain significantly better predictions of the temporal dynamics
in such cases by using non-linear prediction methods.
So far we have discussed one approach to flow reconstruction mainly relying on
first performing flow decomposition into spatial basis functions and then predicting
the temporal evolution of the mode amplitudes via linear or non-linear methods. In
some cases it is convenient to directly reconstruct the temporal evolution of the flow
field (without a previous decomposition step) in certain regions of the domain: for
instance, if we are interested in obtaining an accurate evolution of the flow on a
certain horizontal or vertical plane. There have been some attempts to accomplish
this type of reconstruction in the literature using linear methods. For instance,
Illingworth et al. (2018) employed a linear dynamical-system approach based on the
resolvent-analysis framework (McKeon and Sharma 2010) to predict the velocity
field on a horizontal plane based on the velocity field from another horizontal plane,
both of them being in the logarithmic region of a turbulent channel flow. On the
other hand, other recent studies (Encinar and Jiménez 2019; Suzuki and Hasegawa
2017) employed LSE to predict different horizontal planes of the flow in a turbulent
channel based on wall measurements such as the pressure and the two components
of the wall-shear stress. Sasaki et al. (2019) recently assessed flow-reconstruction
methods based on single- and multiple-input linear transfer functions, which can
then be used as convolution kernels to predict the fluctuations in a spatially develop-
ing turbulent boundary layer. In particular, they performed predictions of the near-
wall flow based on horizontal velocity fields in the outer region, and they also
reconstructed the flow based on wall measurements. Note that the linear methods
are able to provide only modest predictions close to the plane used as an input, and
the accuracy of the reconstruction rapidly degrades farther away. This is because
turbulent flows exhibit both linear (superposition) and non-linear (modulation)
scale-interaction phenomena (Dogan et al. 2019); therefore, linear methods only
provide an incomplete prediction. In fact, Sasaki et al. (2019) also documented sig-
nificant improvements in the predictions when using non-linear transfer functions to
relate the input and the output.
Recent work by Guastoni et al. (2021) reports a flow-reconstruction analysis in a
turbulent open channel, where they predicted the turbulent fluctuations on different
horizontal planes using the spatial distribution of the two wall-shear-stress compo-
nents and the wall pressure. To this end, they employed a particular type of neural
network, namely, the so-called convolutional neural network (CNN) (LeCun et al.
1998), which is widely used in computer vision. To summarize their results, close to
the wall they were able to predict the streamwise fluctuation peak with less than 1%
error, and farther away from the wall they obtained good results using a combina-
tion of a CNN and POD (Guastoni et al. 2021). Despite the fact that this study was
conducted in the context of turbulent channels, more complex geometries such as
simplified urban environments (Stuck et al. 2021; Vinuesa et al. 2015) can also be
considered, including other quantities such as temperature and pollutant concentra-
tion. In fact, Güemes et al. (2021) documented the potential of using GANs (which
are discussed above) for predictions where few sparse measurements are available,
and several additional studies have reported the possibility of using long short-term
memory (LSTM) networks for temporal predictions in turbulence (Eivazi et al.
2021; Srinivasan et al. 2019). Consequently, deep neural networks are an excellent
choice to predict horizontal (or vertical) sections of the flow field (as well as tem-
perature and pollutant concentration) using wall data, thereby significantly improv-
ing currently available prediction techniques in urban flows. A schematic
representation of the process is shown in Fig. 3, and we argue that AI can certainly
contribute towards the achievement of higher air quality in urban environments via
sparse measurements. Also, to address the gap caused by the sparsely distributed
air-quality monitoring networks at the city level, Gupta et al. (2018a, b) proposed
the simulated annealing-based optimization method to capture data with higher pre-
cision at the city level, with the opportunity to enable more inclusive air-quality data
collection and encourage citizen participation.
Fig. 3 Schematic representation illustrating (top) AI application to non-intrusive prediction of

flow and pollutants in an urban environment and (bottom) application of GANs to super-resolution
and prediction from sparse measurements in a turbulent flow. (Bottom panel reprinted from
Guemes et al. (2021), with permission of the publisher (AIP Publishing))
3.3 The Role of AI in Efficient and Sustainable

Urban Mobility
The urgent need for improving transportation within the urban environment is
directly addressed in target 11.2 on affordable and sustainable transport systems.
Moreover, an increased transportation efficiency, both from a sustainability and a
connectivity perspective, would enable the achievement of targets 11.6 (reduced
environmental impact of cities) and 11.a (implementation of urban and regional
planning and increased inter-urban population integration). Transportation accessi-
bility and efficiency has long been identified in the literature as a critical factor for
social cohesion and inclusion (Cass et al. 2005; Pooley 2016; Social Exclusion Unit
2003), and the implementation of an integrated and inter-modal transportation sys-
tem in urban and metropolitan areas is a key factor towards achieving a livable city
(Lowe 1990; Vuchic 2017). Furthermore, due to its current major dependency on
internal combustion engines, transportation plays a big role in ambient air pollution,
making it an area critical for any SDG-related intervention in the urban environment
(European Environment Agency 2021). After a comprehensive literature review, we
have identified three main areas in which AI can act as an enabling agent: guidance
of urban transportation policy, urban-mobility planning and modeling, and (con-
nected) autonomous vehicle development.
Fig. 4 Applications of AI that can help to achieve SDG 13
4 AI for Ambitious Climate-Action Targets
In this section we will expand the evidence base and analysis on the role of AI in
achieving SDG 13 on climate action, as well as other broader objectives related to
the climate crisis, including but not limited to the achievement of the Paris
Agreement. A summary of the areas where AI can help to achieve SDG 13 is pro-
vided in Fig. 4.
4.1 The Potential Role of Artificial Intelligence to Combat

Climate Change
Climate change could undermine the achievement of at least 72 targets across the
SGDs, including outcomes for healthy and sustainable societies (Nerini et al. 2019;
Romm 2018). Storms, droughts, fires, and flooding have become more frequent and
stronger (Field et al. 2012). Global ecosystems are unstable, including the agricul-
ture and natural resources on which humanity depends. The intergovernmental
report on climate change in 2018 reported that the world would encounter cata-
strophic consequences unless global greenhouse gas emissions are removed within
30 years (Allen et al. 2018). Yet year after year, these emissions rise. Addressing
climate change includes mitigation (reducing emissions) and adaptation (preparing
for unavoidable consequences). Both have multifaceted aspects. Mitigation of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions requires improvements in electricity systems,
transportation, buildings, industry, and land use. Adaptation needs planning for
resilience and disaster management, given an understanding of climate and extreme
events. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to enhance global efforts to both
mitigate GHG emissions and adapt the required planning (Gupta et al. 2021; Vinuesa
et al. 2020a). There is evidence that AI advances will support the understanding of
climate change and the modeling of its possible impacts. AI is helpful in dealing
with several climate-change mitigation measures. For example, AI can help to cap-
ture patterns and process temperature change data and carbon emissions (Barnes
et al. 2019; Wu et al. 2018), predict extreme weather events caused by climate
change (Feng et al. 2019), recognize the effects of climate on health (Berrang-Ford
et al. 2021), understand the energy needs and manage energy consumption (Aslam
et al. 2020; Kim and Cho 2019), monitor the impact in biodiversity due to climate
change (Dujon and Schofield 2019; Kulkarni and Di Minin 2021), transform the
transportation system for decreasing carbon emissions and make it more efficient in
energy management and routing (Alsrehin et al. 2019; Hu et al. 2019; Milojevic-
Dupont and Creutzig 2021), monitor the impact on ocean (Lou et al. 2021), predict
impacts for enabling precision agriculture (Sharma et al. 2020), support in smart
recycling (Rutqvist et al. 2019), assist carbon capture and geo-engineering (Menad
et al. 2019), and create awareness about climate impact (George et al. 2021). AI will
support low-carbon energy systems with high integration of renewable energy and
energy efficiency, which are all needed to address climate change.
4.2 AI in Support of Understanding Climate Change
An extensive range of social areas are challenged by climate change. This fact
demands remarkable adaptation to tackle future changes in weather patterns. AI has
enhanced dramatically, provoking advancement in various research sectors, and
also proposed in aiding climate analysis (Reichstein et al. 2019; Schneider et al.
2017). AI can be integrated to discovered climate connections by the Earth System
Model (ESM) to support improved warnings of approaching weather features, like
extreme weather events. While ESM development is of principal importance, a par-
allel emphasis on implementing AI to understand far more existing models and
simulations is suggested (Huntingford et al. 2019). AI advances will support the
understanding of climate change and the modeling of its possible impacts, therefore
supporting adaptive capacity to climate change (Tripathi et al. 2006). AI techniques
are utilized to investigate a tremendous amount of unstructured and heterogeneous

data and disclose and extract complex and sophisticated relations among the data
without the demand of an explicit analytical model of those relations (Dewitte et al.
2021; Herweijer and Waughray 2018), supporting in understanding the climate
anomalies (Yang et al. 2019). AI is advancing the way we understand the impact of
climate change on biomass (Wu et al. 2019), hydrology (Goyal et al. 2014), and
extreme events such as droughts (Yang et al. 2016) and support in taking mitigation
measures (Buckland et al. 2019; Ghiggi et al. 2019). The application of AI tech-
niques in extracting meaningful patterns and datasets from the rapidly increasing
data deluge with the aim of coping with the challenges related to weather forecast,
climate monitoring (Ghiggi et al. 2019), and decade-wise prediction is inevitable
(Dewitte et al. 2021).
Many AI techniques help identify inter-seasonal connections, linking potential
climate-induced risk and aiding in adaptation planning, e.g., timely crop sowing,
and mitigate natural disasters. Recent advancements such as drones and the IoT
with AI support improve the efficiency of existing systems by offering possibilities
to extend mission coverage with refined spatial and temporal resolutions. A recent
contribution to the domain includes the hybrid frameworks powered with deep-
learning techniques to classify images aiding in natural disasters such as avalanches,
cyclones, and fires (Hern ́andez et al. 2021; Nijhawan et al. 2019). AI also plays a
vital role in a wide range of responses to the climate crisis, mainly focused on miti-
gating existing emissions. Recent studies highlight the relevance of using AI in
decreasing environmental emissions produced by industries and urban spaces
(Jasim et al. 2020; Kharat and Devi 2021), and foster circular economy vision (Bag
et al. 2021; Wilson et al. 2021).
4.3 AI in Support of Low-Carbon Energy Systems
The obtainment of fuels and raw materials for electricity grid, the process of gener-
ating and storing electricity, as well as the transmission of electricity to end-use
consumers called electricity system are responsible for around a quarter of human-
caused greenhouse gas emissions each year (Change et al. 2014). Furthermore,
since other energy-intensive sectors as buildings and transportation seek to replace
GHG-emitting fuels, demand for low-carbon energy systems will grow. AI will con-
tribute to rapid transition to low-carbon energy sources (like solar, wind, hydro, and
nuclear) and decreasing the share of carbon-intensive sources (like natural gas, coal,
and other fossil fuels). Renewable energy resources are appearing as sustainable
alternatives to fossil fuels. They are much safer and cleaner than conventional fossil
sources. With remarkable advancements in technology, the renewable energy sector
has made outstanding progress in the last decade (Brockway et al. 2019). However,
there are still a wide variety of challenges associated with renewable energies that
can be addressed with the help of innovative techniques. AI can analyze the past,
optimize the present, predict the future, and digitalize the energy sector. The
unpredictability of the available resource is one of the most significant challenges of

producing renewable energy (Haupt et al. 2020). The electric grid is evolving rap-
idly with integrated variable renewable energy sources (Selleneit et al. 2020). Due
to the inherent intermittence of renewable energy sources, the current grid encoun-
ters many challenges in combining the diversity of renewable energy (Haupt et al.
2020). The utility industry requires intelligent systems to improve the integration of
renewable energies with the existing grid and let renewable energies play an equal
role in the energy supply. The energy grid collects a large amount of data by inter-
connecting with devices and sensors. AI techniques could (i) systematically analyze
a vast amount of data generated in plants; (ii) translate the complex data into visu-
alizations and insights that everyone can take advantage of; (iii) discover, interpret,
and communicate meaningful patterns in data; (iv) diagnose and understand the
reason behind the patterns in data in the past; (v) predict what is most likely to hap-
pen in the future; (vi) apply data patterns towards effective decision-making; and
finally (vii) make recommendations to be taken to affect the outcomes (Li et al.
2021b). This AI-based data-driven information will give the grid planners and oper-
ators new insights to plan and operate the grid more efficiently (Khosrojerdi et al.
2021). It also offers flexibility to the energy providers to cleverly adjust the supply
with demand (Zhang et al. 2021a). While the biggest goal of AI in renewable energy
is to manage intermittency, it can also offer improved safety, efficiency, and reli-
ability. It can help understand the energy consumption patterns and identify the
devices’ energy leakage and health (Wang et al. 2009).
However, AI could be used to identify technically recoverable oil and gas
resources and optimize the coal sector, reducing global fossil fuel prices and there-
fore reducing the competitiveness of renewable energy sources (Li et al. 2021a).
The application of AI in the oil and gas industry is very quickly enhancing. AI
gradually gets through various stages of the oil and gas industry, such as intelligent
drilling, intelligent extraction, intelligent pipeline, intelligent refinery, etc., and it
will become the future research direction (Li et al. 2021a). While AI can provide
many advantages to the energy system, it can also cause some concerns like vulner-
ability to cyber-attacks, privacy and data ownership, and economic disruption
(I. E. Agency 2017). Reported disruptions related to cyber-attacks in energy systems
have been relatively small. Nevertheless, the increasing application of digitalized
equipment and the growth of the Internet of things (IoT) in energy systems could
make cyber-attacks easier and cheaper to organize (I. E. Agency 2017).
4.4 AI in Service of Energy Efficiency
AI is believed to be the critical aspect in the energy systems, dealing with different
energy practices (electricity, hydrogen-based fuels, wind, nuclear, solar, and other
renewable sources, carbon capture) along with the end-use perspective (electrical
appliances, transportation, heating, manufacturing, industry, and others) (Gómez-
Bombarelli et al. 2018; Lee 2019; Raza and Khosravi 2015). AI can help in
underpinning energy diversity and localization for infrastructure planning, energy

consumption forecasting, and intelligent controlling (Costamagna et al. 2019; Wang
et al. 2020a). AI techniques are used for improving the design, manufacturing, and
optimization of energy-consumption-related aspects and also identifying the opti-
mal materials, improving the safety of energy use (Dostatni 2018; Guo et al. 2018;
Solano et al. 2017; Ullah et al. 2020). AI could support the usage of smart grids,
which in turn could increase the efficiency of local and global energy systems.
There are two enabling factors for making a smart grid possible. In the first place,
the deployment of modern IoT devices allows increasing the quantity and quality of
data obtained from the network. Secondly, the big data collected can now be pro-
cessed by AI to obtain quick results on decision-making that would be impossible
for human operators (Ali and Choi 2020). The power grid is a complicated adaptive
system under semi-autonomous distributed control with a lot of uncertainties. The
integration of renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind farms, electric
and plug-in hybrid vehicles adds further complexity and challenges to the different
levels of the power grid. Many efforts have been put into smart grid development to
coordinate the interests of electric consumers, utilities, and environmentalists
(Venayagamoorthy 2009). Real-time data in buildings and weather forecast, com-
bined with smart systems, could predict when heating and cooling are needed, thus
increasing system efficiency (I. E. Agency 2017; Yan et al. 2021). AI could conduct
the active demand-side management for households in smart grids, which contain
distributed solar photo-voltaic generation and energy storage (Di Santo et al. 2018).
Smart demand response, for instance, could provide 185 gigawatts (GW) of elec-
tricity system flexibility, approximately equal to the currently combined installed
electricity supply capacity of Australia and Italy (I. E. Agency 2017). Consensus
exists among experts globally that our future energy supply should be economical,
cleaner, and safer (Gielen et al. 2019). This in return will help in sustainable devel-
opment by making electricity more affordable and accessible, decreasing GHG
emissions, and efficient grid operations and reliable maintenance of power infra-
structure, if used mindfully.
4.5 Engagement of AI on Climate Change
AI can reduce costs, increase productivity, raise resource intensity, and enhance
efficient public services (Vinuesa et al. 2020a). AI has been proposed as an enabler
for new ambitious policy proposals for addressing climate change, such as being
used for the implementation of personal carbon allowances (Fuso Nerini et al.
2021). However, there are also risks and downsides associated with AI that we all
must be aware of being able to address any potential short−/long-term undesired
impact (Gupta et al. 2020, 2021). AI can have a significant impact on global energy
demand. Developed AI technology, research, and product design may require exten-
sive computational resources, which are only accessible through advanced comput-
ing centers. Recent studies on the energy demand and emissions associated with
training and development of AI models have indicated the broader consequences of

this rapid development (Henderson et al. 2020). Evidence is also emerging about
the substantial climate impact of AI development (Lannelongue et al. 2021). These
carbon footprints are associated mainly with the rapid development and training of
AI algorithms with little consideration to the overall impact on the Earth system.
Some estimates further show that the total electricity demand of ICT could grow up
to 20% of the global electricity demand by 2030, from around 1% today (Masanet
et al. 2020).
With the increasing amount of data from diverse sources, the role of AI will
steadily increase. In particular, AI will play a vital role considering the increasing
debate on green, low-carbon electricity generation through optimal energy storage
scenarios. Several efforts have been made to decrease the carbon footprint of data
centers by investing in energy-efficient infrastructure and switching to renewable
sources of energy (Karnama et al. 2019; Masanet et al. 2020). Considering the cur-
rent state of the wide range of dependencies in one form or another on AI and
associated services of AI systems (e.g., data collection and storage, hardware
requirements and global shipments, training AI/ML models, etc.), uncertainty per-
sists in realizing the comprehensive carbon footprint of AI. It is crucial to keep pace
with the growing demand for AI infrastructure and whether efficiency gains by AI
can be equally realized globally is an essential factor considering the environmen-
tal impact. The evidence to realize the net energy effects of AI and associated digi-
tal technologies is emerging. The indirect effects of using AI are likely to have a
more considerable impact than the energy savings. The impact could be positive or
negative depending on how mindfully it was utilized. Rebound and systemic effects
are essential to be integrated to realize the complete picture of whether – or under
which conditions and context – the AI services lead to a net positive or negative
impact. Furthermore, the increased digitalization of strategic infrastructure exhibits
some clear cyber-security challenges, increasing resource requirements along
with time.
5 Conclusions and Outlook
AI deployment has major consequences on society, on the economy and the envi-
ronment, and consequently on the SDGs. As evidenced by the COVID-19 crisis, AI
can be a tool to increase the resilience of urban populations during times of crisis,
but it also has negative impacts. An understanding of these effects is essential so that
we can tackle other important crises, such as the climate emergency. In this contri-
bution we summarized the potential of AI to help achieve the SDGs related to
healthy and sustainable societies, i.e., SDG 3 (on good health), SDG 11 (on sustain-
able cities), and SDG 13 (on climate action). When it comes to SDG 3, AI can help
combat the shortage of healthcare workforce, which affects greatly the low- and
middle-income (LAMIC) countries. There is potential in the optimization of avail-
able resources through triaging and improved diagnosis, as well as in more detailed
screening and prognosis. AI can also help in the context of automatic drug discovery
or GeoAI for patient-location history, which may help against epidemics and pan-
demics. This is aligned with the One Health approach. This of course has socio-
ethical concerns, including privacy and data handling, increased inequalities due to
lower AI literacy or access, and the need for specialized training of healthcare pro-
fessionals. In healthcare-decision assistance, there are problems with biased train-
ing datasets, which may lead to under-representation of certain ethnicities or social
groups. Overall, there is tremendous potential in the context of this SDG, as long as
the possible pitfalls are understood and properly handled. Regarding SDG 11, AI
can help with various aspects to understand the climate impact and to prepare adap-
tation strategies for urban areas. To this end, satellite imaging and IoT-sensor-based
data-collection methods are often preferred, because of their capacity to provide
sustainable data in large areas over long periods of time. We discuss the use of AI
for mapping and predictive/generative modeling, as well as the use of explainable-
AI methods in order to provide solutions to understand vegetation cover, wildfire
spreading, heat island impacts, water security, air quality, and other applications to
support climate adaptation. Explainable-AI methods are not only found useful for
understanding the climate indicators in more depth, but they are also found impor-
tant for increasing trust on AI models by bringing more transparency on their func-
tionality (thus avoiding black-box modeling).
Finally, prediction and pattern-recognition capabilities, which may help to better
prepare for extreme weather events, monitor biodiversity, and can provide improved
climate modeling, are areas where AI can help to achieve SDG 13. Also, increased
energy efficiency through integration of largely varying renewable energy sources
into the energy mix, together with consumption forecasting and grid optimization
(smart grids), is a relevant area fueled by AI. In this context, attention must be paid
to cyber-security in AI-driven electrical grids, due to possible disruptions and data-
privacy problems. Finally, it is important to note that there is a large carbon footprint
related with training complex and expensive AI models, and there is a strong need
to decrease carbon footprint of the data centers used for model development. To
conclude, the increased ability to acquire, process, and analyze large amounts of
heterogeneous data is the main driver behind AI disruption. Pattern recognition and
the reconstruction and predictive capabilities of the state-of-the-art AI models pres-
ent great opportunities in achieving healthy and sustainable societies. There are
already a number of applications of AI related to health, smart cities, and smart
grids in use, proving its potential. Nevertheless, the increased complexity of these
models, which (in the case of deep learning) essentially act as black boxes consum-
ing vast amounts of data, could hinder some of the efforts towards achieving the
SDGs, in relation to equality and climate change. Privacy, data management and
governance, the carbon footprint associated with the training and deployment of AI
models, as well as their interpretability are identified as key aspects which could be
defining in the role of AI in achieving healthy and sustainable societies.
Acknowledgments RV acknowledges the support of the KTH Sustainability Office and the KTH
Digitalization Platform. SG acknowledges the support provided by the German Federal Ministry
for Education and Research (BMBF) in the project “digitainable.”
References
Alam, N., E.L. Hobbelink, A.-J. van Tienhoven, P.M. van de Ven, E.P. Jansma, and
P.W. Nanayakkara. 2014. The Impact of the Use of the Early Warning Score (EWS) on Patient
Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Resuscitation 85 (5): 587–594.
Ali, S.S., and B.J. Choi. 2020. State-of-the-Art Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Distributed
Smart Grids: A Review. Electronics 9 (6): 1030.
Allam, Z., and Z.A. Dhunny. 2019. On Big Data, Artificial Intelligence and Smart Cities. Cities 89:
80–91. ISSN 0264-2751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.032.
Allen, M., O. Dube, W. Solecki, F. Arag ́on-Durand, W. Cramer, S. Humphreys, M. Kainuma,
J. Kala, N. Mahowald, Y. Mulugetta, et al. 2018. Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC Special
Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C Above Pre-industrial Levels and Related
Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global
Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate
Poverty.
Alsrehin, N.O., A.F. Klaib, and A. Magableh. 2019. Intelligent Transportation and Control Systems
Using Data Mining and Machine Learning Techniques: A Comprehensive Study. IEEE Access
7: 49830–49857.
Aslam, S., A. Khalid, and N. Javaid. 2020. Towards Efficient Energy Management in Smart
Grids Considering Microgrids with Day-Ahead Energy Forecasting. Electric Power Systems
Research 182: 106232.
Ayturan, A., Z. Ayturan, and H. Altun. 2018. Air Pollution Modelling with Deep Learning: A
Review. International Journal of Environmental Pollution & Environmental Modelling
1: 58–62.
Bag, S., J.H.C. Pretorius, S. Gupta, and Y.K. Dwivedi. 2021. Role of Institutional Pressures and
Resources in the Adoption of Big Data Analytics Powered Artificial Intelligence, Sustainable
Manufacturing Practices and Circular Economy Capabilities. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change 163: 120420.
Barnes, E.A., J.W. Hurrell, I. Ebert-Uphoff, C. Anderson, and D. Anderson. 2019. Viewing Forced
Climate Patterns Through an AI Lens. Geophysical Research Letters 46 (22): 13389–13398.
Beaudoin, M., F. Kabanza, V. Nault, and L. Valiquette. 2016. Evaluation of a Machine Learning
Capability for a Clinical Decision Support System to Enhance Antimicrobial Stewardship
Programs. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 68: 29–36.
Bejnordi, B.E., M. Veta, P.J. Van Diest, B. Van Ginneken, N. Karssemeijer, G. Litjens, J.A. VanDer
Laak, M. Hermsen, Q.F. Manson, M. Balkenhol, et al. 2017. Diagnostic Assessment of Deep
Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women with Breast Cancer.
JAMA 318 (22): 2199–2210.
Berrang-Ford, L., A.J. Sietsma, M. Callaghan, J.C. Minx, P.F. Scheelbeek, N.R. Haddaway,
A. Haines, and A.D. Dangour. 2021. Systematic Mapping of Global Research on Climate and
Health: A Machine Learning Review. The Lancet Planetary Health 5 (8): e514–e525.
Bora, A., S. Balasubramanian, B. Babenko, S. Virmani, S. Venugopalan, A. Mitani, G. de Oliveira
Marinho, J. Cuadros, P. Ruamviboonsuk, G.S. Corrado, et al. 2021. Predicting the Risk of
Developing Diabetic Retinopathy Using Deep Learning. The Lancet Digital Health 3 (1):
e10–e19.
Boree, J. 2003. Extended Proper Orthogonal Decomposition: A Tool to Analyse Correlated Events
in Turbulent Flows. Experiments in Fluids 35: 188–192.
Boukerche, A., Y. Tao, and P. Sun. 2020. Artificial Intelligence-Based Vehicular Traffic Flow
Prediction Methods for Supporting Intelligent Transportation Systems. Computer Networks
182: 107484. ISSN 1389-1286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2020.107484. https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389128620311567.
Boulos, M.N.K., and J. Le Blond. 2016. On the Road to Personalised and Precision Geomedicine:
Medical Geology and a Renewed Call for Interdisciplinarity. Internal Journal of Health
Geographics 15: 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-016-0033-0.
Brockway, P.E., A. Owen, L.I. Brand-Correa, and L. Hardt. 2019. Estimation of Global Final-
Stage Energy-Return-on-Investment for Fossil Fuels with Comparison to Renewable Energy
Sources. Nature Energy 4 (7): 612–621.
Buckland, C., R. Bailey, and D. Thomas. 2019. Using Artificial Neural Networks to Predict Future
Dryland Responses to Human and Climate Disturbances. Scientific Reports 9 (1): 1–13.
Buolamwini, J., and T. Gebru. 2018. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities
in Commercial Gender Classification. In Proceedings of the Conference onFairness,
Accountability, and Transparency – FAT* ’19, Volume 81 of Proceedings of Machine Learning
Research, ed. S.A. Friedler and C. Wilson, 1–15. PMLR. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/
buolamwini18a.html.
Carayannis, E., T. Barth, and D. Campbell. 2012. The Quintuple Helix Innovation Model: Global
Warming as a Challenge and Driver for Innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship
1: 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-1-2.
Carpentieri, M. 2013. Pollutant Dispersion in the Urban Environment. Reviews in Environmental
Science and Biotechnology 12: 5–8.
Cass, N., E. Shove, and J. Urry. 2005. Social Exclusion, Mobility and Access. The Sociological
Review 53 (3): 539–555.
Change, I.C., et al. 2014. Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Vol. 1454.
Cambridge University Press.
Chapman, H., A. Omar, J. Haynes, and S. Estes. 2018. Linking Satellite Data to the “One Health”
Approach. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts 2018: GH34B–09.
Chen, H., O. Engkvist, Y. Wang, M. Olivecrona, and T. Blaschke. 2018. The Rise of Deep Learning
in Drug Discovery. Drug Discovery Today 23 (6): 1241–1250.
Collier, E., K. Duffy, S. Ganguly, G. Madanguit, S. Kalia, G. Shreekant, R. Nemani, A. Michaelis,
S. Li, A. Ganguly, and S. Mukhopadhyay. 2018. Progressively Growing Generative Adversarial
Networks for High Resolution Semantic Segmentation of Satellite Images. In 2018 IEEE
International Conferenceon Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW), 763–769. https://doi.
org/10.1109/ICDMW.2018.00115.
Cook, R., W. Karesh, and S. Osofsky. 2004. The Manhattan Principles on ‘One World One Health’.
In One World, One Health: Building Interdisciplinary Bridges to Health in a Globalized World,
29. New York: Wildlife Conservation Society.
Costamagna, P., A. De Giorgi, G. Moser, S.B. Serpico, and A. Trucco. 2019. Data-Driven
Techniques for Fault Diagnosis in Power Generation Plants Based on Solid Oxide Fuel Cells.
Energy Conversion and Management 180: 281–291.
Creswell, A., T. White, V. Dumoulin, K. Arulkumaran, B. Sengupta, and A.A. Bharath. 2018.
Generative Adversarial Networks: An Overview. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 35 (1):
53–65. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2017.2765202.
D. Hern ́andez, J.-C. Cano, F. Silla, C.T. Calafate, and J.M. Cecilia. 2021. AI-Enabled Autonomous
Drones for Fast Climate Change Crisis Assessment. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 9 (10):
7286–7297.
Dembrower, K., Y. Liu, H. Azizpour, M. Eklund, K. Smith, P. Lindholm, and F. Strand. 2020.
Comparison of a Deep Learning Risk Score and Standard Mammographic Density Score for
Breast Cancer Risk Prediction. Radiology 294 (2): 265–272.
Dennet, D.C. 1997. When HAL Kills, Who’s to Blame? Computer Ethics. In HAL’s Legacy:
2001’s Computer as Dream and Reality, ed. D.G. Stork, 351–365. MIT Press. ISBN
978-0-262-19378-8.
Dewitte, S., J.P. Cornelis, R. M̈uller, and A. Munteanu. 2021. Artificial Intelligence Revolutionises
Weather Forecast, Climate Monitoring and Decadal Prediction. Remote Sensing 13 (16): 3209.
Di Santo, K.G., S.G. Di Santo, R.M. Monaro, and M.A. Saidel. 2018. Active Demand Side
Management for Households in Smart Grids Using Optimization and Artificial Intelligence.
Measurement 115: 152–161.
Dogan, E., R. Örlü, D. Gatti, R. Vinuesa, and P. Schlatter. 2019. Quantification of Amplitude
Modulation in Wall-Bounded Turbulence. Fluid Dynamics Research 51: 011408.
Dostatni, E. 2018. Recycling-Oriented Eco-design Methodology Based on Decentralised Artificial
Intelligence. Management and Production Engineering Review 9: 79–89.
Downing, N.L., J. Rolnick, S.F. Poole, E. Hall, A.J. Wessels, P. Heidenreich, and L. Shieh.
2019. Electronic Health Record-Based Clinical Decision Support Alert for Severe Sepsis: A
Randomised Evaluation. BMJ Quality and Safety 28 (9): 762–768.
Dujon, A.M., and G. Schofield. 2019. Importance of Machine Learning for Enhancing Ecological
Studies Using Information-Rich Imagery. Endangered Species Research 39: 91–104.
E. Commission. 2018. Communication on Enabling the Digital Transformation of Health and Care
in the Digital Single Market; Empowering Citizens and Building a Healthier Society. https://
digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/communication-enabling-digital-transformation-
health-and-care-digital-single-market-empowering.
Engstrom, E, F. Strand, and P. Strimling. 2021. Human-AI Interactions in a Trial of AI Breast
Cancer Diagnostics in a Real-World Clinical Setting.
EC Air Quality Framework Directive. 1996. European Commission, Ambient Air Quality
Assessment and Management. Council Directive 96/62/EC.
Eivazi, H., L. Guastoni, P. Schlatter, H. Azizpour, and R. Vinuesa. 2021. Recurrent Neural
Networks and Koopman-Based Frameworks for Temporal Predictions in a Low-Order Model
of Turbulence. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 90: 108816.
Encinar, M.P., and J. Jiménez. 2019. Logarithmic-Layer Turbulence: A View from the Wall.
Physical Review Fluids 4: 114603.
Esteva, A., B. Kuprel, R.A. Novoa, J. Ko, S.M. Swetter, H.M. Blau, and S. Thrun. 2017.
Dermatologist-Level Classification of Skin Cancer with Deep Neural Networks. Nature 542
(7639): 115–118.
European Environment Agency. 2021. Europe’s Air Quality Status 2021, Briefing No. 08/2021.
European Environment Agency.
Fenech, M.E., and O. Buston. 2020. AI in Cardiac Imaging: A UK-Based Perspective on
Addressing the Ethical, Social, and Political Challenges. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
7: 54. ISSN 2297-055X. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2020.00054. https://www.frontiersin.
org/article/10.3389/fcvm.2020.00054.
Feng, P., B. Wang, D. Li Liu, C. Waters, and Q. Yu. 2019. Incorporating Machine Learning with
Biophysical Model Can Improve the Evaluation of Climate Extremes Impacts on Wheat Yield
in South-Eastern Australia. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 275: 100–113.
Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, and Q. Dahe. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and
Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Fuso Nerini, F., T. Fawcett, Y. Parag, and P. Ekins. 2021. Personal Carbon Allowances Revisited.
Nature Sustainability 4: 1–7.
Garcia-Vidal, C., G. Sanjuan, P. Puerta-Alcalde, E. Moreno-Garc ́ıa, and A. Soriano. 2019. Artificial
Intelligence to Support Clinical Decision-Making Processes. eBioMedicine 46: 27–29.
George, G., R.K. Merrill, and S.J. Schillebeeckx. 2021. Digital Sustainability and Entrepreneurship:
How Digital Innovations Are Helping Tackle Climate Change and Sustainable Development.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 45 (5): 999–1027.
Gerke, S., T. Minssen, and G. Cohen. 2020. Chapter 12 – Ethical and Legal Challenges of
Artificial Intelligence-Driven Healthcare. In Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare, ed.
A. Bohr and K. Memarzadeh, 295–336. Academic. ISBN 978-0-12-818438-7. https://doi.
org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818438-7.00012-5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
B9780128184387000125.
Ghiggi, G., V. Humphrey, S.I. Seneviratne, and L. Gudmundsson. 2019. Grun: An Observation-
Based Global Gridded Runoff Dataset From 1902 to 2014. Earth System Science Data 11 (4):
1655–1674.
Giacobbe, D.R., S. Mora, M. Giacomini, and M. Bassetti. 2020. Machine Learning and Multidrug-
Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria: An Interesting Combination for Current and Future
Research. Antibiotics 9 (2): 54.
Gielen, D., F. Boshell, D. Saygin, M.D. Bazilian, N. Wagner, and R. Gorini. 2019. The Role of
Renewable Energy in the Global Energy Transformation. Energy Strategy Reviews 24: 38–50.
Gómez-Bombarelli, R., J.N. Wei, D. Duvenaud, J. M. Herńandez-Lobato, B. Śanchez-Lengeling,
D. Sheberla, J. Aguilera-Iparraguirre, T.D. Hirzel, R.P. Adams, and A. Aspuru-Guzik. 2018.
Automatic Chemical Design Using a Data-Driven Continuous Representation of Molecules.
ACS Central Science 4 (2): 268–276.
Goyal, M.K., B. Bharti, J. Quilty, J. Adamowski, and A. Pandey. 2014. Modeling of Daily Pan
Evaporation in Sub Tropical Climates Using ANN, LS-SVR, Fuzzy Logic, and Anfis. Expert
Systems with Applications 41 (11): 5267–5276.
Guastoni, L., A. Güemes, A. Ianiro, S. Discetti, P. Schlatter, H. Azizpour, and R. Vinuesa. 2021.
Convolutional-Network Models to Predict Wall-Bounded Turbulence from Wall Quantities.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics 928: A27.
Güemes, A., S. Discetti, A. Ianiro, B. Sirmacek, H. Azizpour, and R. Vinuesa. 2021. From Coarse
Wall Measurements to Turbulent Velocity Fields Through Deep Learning. Physics of Fluids
33: 075121.
Guo, H., X. Pu, J. Chen, Y. Meng, M.-H. Yeh, G. Liu, Q. Tang, B. Chen, D. Liu, S. Qi, et al.
2018. A Highly Sensitive, Self-Powered Triboelectric Auditory Sensor for Social Robotics and
Hearing Aids. Science robotics 3 (20): eaat2516.
Gupta, S., E. Pebesma, A. Degbelo, and A.C. Costa. 2018a. Optimising Citizen-Driven Air Quality
Monitoring Networks for Cities. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 7 (12): 468.
Gupta, S., E. Pebesma, J. Mateu, and A. Degbelo. 2018b. Air Quality Monitoring Network Design
Optimisation for Robust Land Use Regression Models. Sustainability 10 (5): 1442.
Gupta, S., M. Motlagh, and J. Rhyner. 2020. The Digitalization Sustainability Matrix: A
Participatory Research Tool for Investigating Digitainability. Sustainability 12 (21): 9283.
Gupta, S., S.D. Langhans, S. Domisch, F. Fuso-Nerini, A. Fellander, M. Battaglini, M. Tegmark,
and R. Vinuesa. 2021. Assessing Whether Artificial Intelligence Is an Enabler or an Inhibitor of
Sustainability at Indicator Level. Transportation Engineering 4: 100064.
Haupt, S.E., T.C. McCandless, S. Dettling, S. Alessandrini, J.A. Lee, S. Linden, W. Petzke,
T. Brummet, N. Nguyen, B. Kosovi ́c, et al. 2020. Combining Artificial Intelligence with
Physics-Based Methods for Probabilistic Renewable Energy Forecasting. Energies 13 (8): 1979.
Heaviside, C., S. Vardoulakis, and X.-M. Cai. 2016. Attribution of Mortality to the Urban Heat
Island During Heatwaves in the West Midlands, UK. Environmental Health 15: S27.
Henderson, P., J. Hu, J. Romoff, E. Brunskill, D. Jurafsky, and J. Pineau. 2020. Towards the
Systematic Reporting of the Energy and Carbon Footprints of Machine Learning. Journal of
Machine Learning Research 21 (248): 1–43.
Herweijer, C., and D. Waughray. 2018. Fourth Industrial Revolution for the Earth Harnessing
Artificial Intelligence for the Earth. A Report of Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC).
Hochreiter, S., and J. Schmidhuber. 1997. Long Short-Term Memory. Neural Computation 9 (8):
1735–1780. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735.
Hosseini, Z., R.J. Martinuzzi, and B.R. Noack. 2015. Sensor-Based Estimation of the Velocity in
the Wake of a Low-Aspect-Ratio Pyramid. Experiments in Fluids 56: 13.
———. 2016. Modal Energy Flow Analysis of a Highly Modulated Wake Behind a Wall-Mounted
Pyramid. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 798: 717–750.
Howe, J., K. Pula, and A.A. Reite. 2019. Conditional Generative Adversarial Networks for Data
Augmentation and Adaptation in Remotely Sensed Imagery. In Applications of Machine
Learning, ed. M.E. Zelinski, T.M. Taha, J. Howe, A.A.S. Awwal, and K.M. Iftekharuddin,
vol. 11139, 119–131. International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE. https://doi.
org/10.1117/12.2529586.
Hu, Y., S. Gao, S.D. Newsam, and D.D. Lunga. 2018. Geoai 2018 Workshop Report the 2nd ACM
Sigspatial International Workshop on Geoai: AI for Geographic Knowledge Discovery Seattle,
WA, USA-November 6, 2018. ACM SIGSPATIAL Special 10 (3): 16.
Hu, Z., Y. Jin, Q. Hu, S. Sen, T. Zhou, and M.T. Osman. 2019. Prediction of Fuel Consumption for
Enroute Ship Based on Machine Learning. IEEE Access 7: 119497–119505.
Huntingford, C., E.S. Jeffers, M.B. Bonsall, H.M. Christensen, T. Lees, and H. Yang. 2019. Machine
Learning and Artificial Intelligence to Aid Climate Change Research and Preparedness.
Environmental Research Letters 14 (12): 124007.
I. E. Agency. 2017. Digitalization & Energy. IEA.
I. M. Ltd. 2020. The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2018 to
2033. Washington, DC: AAMC.
Illingworth, S.J., J.P. Monty, and I. Marusic. 2018. Estimating Large-Scale Structures in Wall
Turbulence Using Linear Models. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 842: 146–162.
Istepanian, R.S., and T. Al-Anzi. 2018. m-health 2.0: New Perspectives on Mobile Health, Machine
Learning and Big Data Analytics. Methods 151: 34–40.
Jabbar, A., X. Li, and B. Omar. 2021. A Survey on Generative Adversarial Networks: Variants,
Applications, and Training. ACM Computing Surveys 54 (8). https://doi.org/10.1145/3463475.
Jasim, O.Z., N.H. Hamed, and M.A. Abid. 2020. Urban Air Quality Assessment Using Integrated
Artificial Intelligence Algorithms and Geographic Information System Modeling in a
Highly Congested Area, Iraq. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University 55 (1). https://doi.
org/10.35741/issn.0258-2724.55.1.16.
Jean, N., M. Burke, M. Xie, W.M. Davis, D.B. Lobell, and S. Ermon. 2016. Combining Satellite
Imagery and Machine Learning to Predict Poverty. Science 353: 790–794.
Jin, C., H. Yu, J. Ke, P. Ding, Y. Yi, X. Jiang, J. Tang, D.T. Chang, X. Wu, F. Gao, et al. 2021.
Predicting Treatment Response from Longitudinal Images Using Multi-task Deep Learning.
Nature Communications 12 (1): 1–11.
Johnston, F., A. Wheeler, G. Williamson, S. Campbell, P. Jones, I. Koolhof, C. Lucani, N. Cooling,
and D. Bowman. 2018. Using Smartphone Technology to Reduce Health Impacts from
Atmospheric Environmental Hazards. Environmental Research Letters 13 (4): 044019.
Jumper, J., R. Evans, A. Pritzel, T. Green, M. Figurnov, O. Ronneberger, K. Tunyasuvunakool,
R. Bates, A.ˇZ ́ıdek, A. Potapenko, et al. 2021. Highly Accurate Protein Structure Prediction
with Alphafold. Nature 596 (7873): 583–589.
Karnama, A., E.B. Haghighi, and R. Vinuesa. 2019. Organic Data Centers: A Sustainable Solution
for Computing Facilities. Results in Engineering 4: 100063.
Khalil, U., B. Aslam, U. Azam, and H.M.D. Khalid. 2021. Time Series Analysis of Land Surface
Temperature and Drivers of Urban Heat Island Effect Based on Remotely Sensed Data to
Develop a Prediction Model. Applied Artificial Intelligence 0 (0): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.108
0/08839514.2021.1993633.
Kharat, R., and T. Devi. 2021. Artificial Intelligence in Environmental Management. In Artificial
Intelligence Theory, Models, and Applications, 37–46. Auerbach Publications.
Khosrojerdi, F., O. Akhigbe, S. Gagnon, A. Ramirez, and G. Richards. 2021. Integrating Artificial
Intelligence and Analytics in Smart Grids: A Systematic Literature Review. International
Journal of Energy Sector Management 16 (2): 318–338.
Kim, D.-W., and C.-J. Cha. 2021. Antibiotic Resistome from the One-Health Perspective:
Understanding and Controlling Antimicrobial Resistance Transmission. Experimental &
Molecular Medicine 53 (3): 301–309.
Kim, T.-Y., and S.-B. Cho. 2019. Predicting Residential Energy Consumption Using CNN-LSTM
Neural Networks. Energy 182: 72–81.
Kinross, J.M., S.E. Mason, G. Mylonas, and A. Darzi. 2020. Next-Generation Robotics in
Gastrointestinal Surgery. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology 17 (7): 430–440.
Kruk, M.E., A.D. Gage, C. Arsenault, K. Jordan, H.H. Leslie, S. Roder-DeWan, O. Adeyi,
P. Barker, B. Daelmans, S.V. Doubova, et al. 2018. High-Quality Health Systems in the
Sustainable Development Goals Era: Time for a Revolution. The Lancet Global Health 6 (11):
e1196–e1252.
Kulkarni, R., and E. Di Minin. 2021. Automated Retrieval of Information on Threatened Species
from Online Sources Using Machine Learning. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 12:
1226–1239.
Kwon, J.-M., Y. Lee, Y. Lee, S. Lee, H. Park, and J. Park. 2018. Validation of Deep-Learning-Based
Triage and Acuity Score Using a Large National Dataset. PLoS One 13 (10): e0205836.
Lakshmi, V., and J. Corbett. 2020. How Artificial Intelligence Improves Agricultural Productivity
and Sustainability: A Global Thematic Analysis. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2020.639.
Lannelongue, L., J. Grealey, and M. Inouye. 2021. Green Algorithms: Quantifying the Carbon
Footprint of Computation. Advanced Science 8: 2100707.
LeCun, Y., L. Bottou, and P. Haffner. 1998. Gradient-Based Learning Applied to Document
Recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE 86: 2278–2324.
LeCun, Y., Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton. 2015. Deep Learning. Nature 521 (7553): 436–444.
Lee, M.-H. 2019. Insights from Machine Learning Techniques for Predicting the Efficiency of
Fullerene Derivatives-Based Ternary Organic Solar Cells at Ternary Blend Design. Advanced
Energy Materials 9 (26): 1900891.
Lelieveld, J., K. Klingmuller, A. Pozzer, U. P̈oschl, M. Fnais, A. Daiber, and T. M̈unzel. 2019.
Cardiovascular Disease Burden from Ambient Air Pollution in Europe Reassessed Using Novel
Hazard Ratio Functions. European Heart Journal 40: 1590–1596.
Li, H., H. Yu, N. Cao, H. Tian, and S. Cheng. 2021a. Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Oil
and Gas Development. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 28 (3): 937–949.
Li, K., J. Tian, W. Xue, and G. Tan. 2021b. Short-Term Electricity Consumption Prediction
for Buildings Using Data-Driven Swarm Intelligence Based Ensemble Model. Energy and
Buildings 231: 110558.
Liang, W., J. Yao, A. Chen, Q. Lv, M. Zanin, J. Liu, S. Wong, Y. Li, J. Lu, H. Liang, et al. 2020.
Early Triage of Critically Ill Covid-19 Patients Using Deep Learning. Nature Communications
11 (1): 1–7.
Lou, R., Z. Lv, S. Dang, T. Su, and X. Li. 2021. Application of Machine Learning in Ocean Data.
Multimedia Systems: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00530-020-00733-x.
Lowe, M.D. 1990. Alternatives to the Automobile: Transport for Livable Cities. Ekistics 344 (345):
269–282.
Lumley, J.L. 1967. The Structure of Inhomogeneous Turbulence. In Atmospheric Turbulence and
Wave Propagation, ed. A.M. Yaglom and V.I. Tatarski, 166–178. Moscow: Nauka.
Luxton, D.D. 2014. Recommendations for the Ethical Use and Design of Artificial Intelligent
Care Providers. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 62 (1): 1–10. ISSN 0933-3657. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2014.06.004. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0933365714000682.
Manoli, G., S. Fatichi, M. Schl̈apfer, K. Yu, T.W. Crowther, N. Meili, P. Burlando, G.G. Katul,
and E. Bou-Zeid. 2019. Magnitude of Urban Heat Islands Largely Explained by Climate and
Population. Nature 573: 55–60.
Masanet, E., A. Shehabi, N. Lei, S. Smith, and J. Koomey. 2020. Recalibrating Global Data Center
Energy-Use Estimates. Science 367 (6481): 984–986.
McKeon, B.J., and A.S. Sharma. 2010. A Critical-Layer Framework for Turbulent Pipe Flow.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics 658: 336–382.
Menad, N.A., A. Hemmati-Sarapardeh, A. Varamesh, and S. Shamshirband. 2019. Predicting
Solubility of CO2 in Brine by Advanced Machine Learning Systems: Application to Carbon
Capture and Sequestration. Journal of CO2 Utilization 33: 83–95.
Milojevic-Dupont, N., and F. Creutzig. 2021. Machine Learning for Geographically Differentiated
Climate Change Mitigation in Urban Areas. Sustainable Cities and Society 64: 102526.
Miotto, R., L. Li, B.A. Kidd, and J.T. Dudley. 2016. Deep Patient: An Unsupervised Representation
to Predict the Future of Patients from the Electronic Health Records. Scientific Reports 6
(1): 1–10.
Mokhasi, P., D. Rempfer, and S. Kandala. 2009. Predictive Flow-Field Estimation. Physica D 238:
290–308.
Motia, S., and S. Reddy. 2021. Exploration of Machine Learning Methods for Prediction
and Assessment of Soil Properties for Agricultural Soil Management: A Quantitative
Evaluation. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1950 (1): 012037. https://doi.
org/10.1088/1742-6596/1950/1/012037.
Murphy, K., E. Di Ruggiero, R. Upshur, D.J. Willison, N. Malhotra, J.C. Cai, N. Malhotra,
V. Lui, and J. Gibson. 2021. Artificial Intelligence for Good Health: A Scoping Review of the
Ethics Literature. BMC Medical Ethics 22 (1): 14. ISSN 1472-6939. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12910-021-00577-8.
Nerini, F.F., B. Sovacool, N. Hughes, L. Cozzi, E. Cosgrave, M. Howells, M. Tavoni, J. Tomei,
H. Zerriffi, and B. Milligan. 2019. Connecting Climate Action with Other Sustainable
Development Goals. Nature Sustainability 2 (8): 674–680.
Nijhawan, R., M. Rishi, A. Tiwari, and R. Dua. 2019. A Novel Deep Learning Framework
Approach for Natural Calamities Detection. In Information and Communication Technology
for Competitive Strategies, 561–569. Springer.
O. Publishing. 2018. Health at a Glance: Europe 2018: State of Health in the EU Cycle.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD.
———. 2020. Trustworthy AI in Health. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development OECD.
O’neil, C. 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens
Democracy. Broadway Books. ISBN 978-0-14-198541-1.
Obermeyer, Z., B. Powers, C. Vogeli, and S. Mullainathan. 2019. Dissecting Racial Bias in an
Algorithm Used to Manage the Health of Populations. Science 366 (6464): 447–453. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.aax2342. https://www-science-org.focus.lib.kth.se/lookup/doi/10.1126/
science.aax2342.
Palomares, I., E. Martınez-Camara, R. Montes, P. Garcıa-Moral, M. Chiachio, J. Chiachio,
S. Alonso, F.J. Melero, D. Molina, B. Fernandez, C. Moral, R. Marchena, J.P. de Vargas, and
F. Herrera. 2021. A Panoramic View and Swot Analysis of Artificial Intelligence for Achieving
the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030: Progress and Prospects. Applied Intelligence
(Dordrecht, Netherlands) 51 (9): 6497–6527. ISSN 1573-7497. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10489-021-02264-y.
Panayides, A.S., A. Amini, N.D. Filipovic, A. Sharma, S.A. Tsaftaris, A. Young, D. Foran, N. Do,
S. Golemati, T. Kurc, et al. 2020. AI in Medical Imaging Informatics: Current Challenges and
Future Directions. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 24 (7): 1837–1857.
Petersen, S.E., M. Abdulkareem, and T. Leiner. 2019. Artificial Intelligence Will Transform
Cardiac Imaging – Opportunities and Challenges. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 6:
133. ISSN 2297-055X. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2019.00133. https://www.frontiersin.org/
article/10.3389/fcvm.2019.00133.
Pibre, L., M. Chaumon, G. Subsol, D. Lenco, and M. Derras. 2017. How to Deal with Multi-
source Data for Tree Detection Based on Deep Learning. In 2017 IEEE Global Conference
on Signal and InformationProcessing (GlobalSIP), 1150–1154. https://doi.org/10.1109/
GlobalSIP.2017.8309141.
Pooley, C. 2016. Mobility, Transport and Social Inclusion: Lessons from History. Social Inclusion
4 (3): 100–109.
Powles, J., and H. Hodson. 2017. Google DeepMind and Healthcare in an Age of Algorithms. Health
and Technology 7 (4): 351–367. ISSN 2190-7196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-017-0179-1.
Rajkomar, A., E. Oren, K. Chen, A.M. Dai, N. Hajaj, M. Hardt, P.J. Liu, X. Liu, J. Marcus, M. Sun,
et al. 2018. Scalable and Accurate Deep Learning with Electronic Health Records. NPJ Digital
Medicine 1 (1): 1–10.
Raza, M.Q., and A. Khosravi. 2015. A Review on Artificial Intelligence Based Load Demand
Forecasting Techniques for Smart Grid and Buildings. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 50: 1352–1372.
Reichstein, M., G. Camps-Valls, B. Stevens, M. Jung, J. Denzler, and N. Carvalhais. 2019. The
National Energy Research Supercomputing Center in Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
Berkeley, CA, USA: Deep Learning and Process Understanding for Data-Driven Earth System
Science. Nature 566: 195–204.
Romm, J. 2018. Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know®. Oxford University Press.
Rutqvist, D., D. Kleyko, and F. Blomstedt. 2019. An Automated Machine Learning Approach
for Smart Waste Management Systems. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 16 (1):
384–392.
Saba, L., M. Biswas, H.S. Suri, K. Viskovic, J.R. Laird, E. Cuadrado-Godia, A. Nicolaides,
N. Khanna, V. Viswanathan, and J.S. Suri. 2019. Ultrasound-Based Carotid Stenosis
Measurement and Risk Stratification in Diabetic Cohort: A Deep Learning Paradigm.
Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy 9 (5): 439.
Sasaki, K., A.V.G. Vinuesa, R. Cavalieri, P. Schlatter, and D.S. Henningson. 2019. Transfer
Functions for Flow Predictions in Wall-Bounded Turbulence. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 864:
708–745.
Schneider, T., S. Lan, A. Stuart, and J. Teixeira. 2017. Earth System Modeling 2.0: A Blueprint for
Models That Learn from Observations and Targeted High-Resolution Simulations. Geophysical
Research Letters 44 (24): 12–396.
Selleneit, V., M. Stockl, and U. Holzhammer. 2020. System Efficiency–Methodology for Rating of
Industrial Utilities in Electricity Grids with a High Share of Variable Renewable Energies – A
First Approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 130: 109969.
Shaban-Nejad, A., M. Michalowski, and D.L. Buckeridge. 2018. Health Intelligence: How
Artificial Intelligence Transforms Population and Personalized Health. NPJ Digital
Medicine 1: 53.
Shahroz, M., F. Ahmad, M.S. Younis, N. Ahmad, M.N.K. Boulos, R. Vinuesa, and J. Qadir.
2021. Covid-19 Digital Contact Tracing Applications and Techniques: A Review Post Initial
Deployments. Transportation Engineering 5: 100072.
Sharma, A., A. Jain, P. Gupta, and V. Chowdary. 2020. Machine Learning Applications for
Precision Agriculture: A Comprehensive Review. IEEE Access 9: 4843–4873.
Shinners, L., C. Aggar, S. Grace, and S. Smith. 2021. Exploring Healthcare Professionals’
Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence: Validating a Questionnaire Using the e-Del-
phi Method. Digital Health 7: 20552076211003433. ISSN 2055-2076. https://doi.
org/10.1177/20552076211003433.
Shorten, G. 2019. Artificial Intelligence and Training Physicians to Perform Technical Procedures.
JAMA Network Open 2 (8): e198375–e198375.
Social Exclusion Unit. 2003. Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social
Exclusion.
Solano, J., L. Olivieri, and E. Caamaño-Martín. 2017. Assessing the Potential of PV Hybrid
Systems to Cover HVAC Loads in a Grid-Connected Residential Building Through Intelligent
Control. Applied Energy 206: 249–266.
Srinivasan, P.A., L. Guastoni, H. Azizpour, P. Schlatter, and R. Vinuesa. 2019. Predictions of
Turbulent Shear Flows Using Deep Neural Networks. Physical Review Fluids 4: 054603.
Stokes, J.M., K. Yang, K. Swanson, W. Jin, A. Cubillos-Ruiz, N.M. Donghia, C.R. MacNair,
S. French, L.A. Carfrae, Z. Bloom-Ackermann, et al. 2020. A Deep Learning Approach to
Antibiotic Discovery. Cell 180 (4): 688–702.
Stuck, M., A. Vidal, P. Torres, H.M. Nagib, C. Wark, and R. Vinuesa. 2021. Spectral-Element
Simulation of the Turbulent Flow in an Urban Environment. Applied Sciences 11: 6472.
Suo, Q., H. Xue, J. Gao, and A. Zhang. 2016. Risk Factor Analysis Based on Deep Learning Models.
In Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational
Biology, and HealthInformatics, 394–403.
Suzuki, T., and Y. Hasegawa. 2017. Estimation of Turbulent Channel Flow at Reθ= 100 Based on
the Wall Measurement Using a Simple Sequential Approach. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 830:
760–796.
Theyazn, A., M. Al-Yaari, H. Alkahtani, and M. Maashi. 2020. Water Quality Prediction Using
Artificial Intelligence Algorithms. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 1–12 (12): 2020. https://
doi.org/10.1155/2020/6659314.
Traore, B.B., B. Kamsu-Foguem, and F. Tangara. 2017. Data Mining Techniques on Satellite
Images for Discovery of Risk Areas. Expert Systems with Applications 72: 443–456.
Tripathi, S., V. Srinivas, and R.S. Nanjundiah. 2006. Downscaling of Precipitation for Climate
Change Scenarios: A Support Vector Machine Approach. Journal of Hydrology 330 (3–4):
621–640.
Ullah, Z., F. Al-Turjman, L. Mostarda, and R. Gagliardi. 2020. Applications of Artificial
Intelligence and Machine Learning in Smart Cities. Computer Communications 154: 313–323.
UN General Assembly (UNGA). 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. Resolut. A/RES/70/1 25: 1–35.
Venayagamoorthy, G.K. 2009. Potentials and Promises of Computational Intelligence for Smart
Grids. In 2009 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting, 1–6. IEEE.
Verghese, A., N.H. Shah, and R.A. Harrington. 2018. What This Computer Needs Is a Physician:
Humanism and Artificial Intelligence. JAMA 319 (1): 19–20. ISSN 0098-7484. https://doi.
org/10.1001/jama.2017.19198.
Vinuesa, R., and B. Sirmacek. 2021. Interpretable Deep-Learning Models to Help Achieve the
Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Machine Intelligence 3: 926, 2021. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s42256-021-00414-y.
Vinuesa, R., P. Schlatter, J. Malm, C. Mavriplis, and D.S. Henningson. 2015. Direct Numerical
Simulation of the Flow Around a Wall-Mounted Square Cylinder Under Various Inflow
Conditions. Journal of Turbulence 16: 555–587.
Vinuesa, R., H. Azizpour, I. Leite, M. Balaam, V. Dignum, S. Domisch, A. Felländer, S.D. Langhans,
M. Tegmark, and F. Fuso Nerini. 2020a. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Communications 11 (1): 233. ISSN 2041-1723. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14108-y. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-14108-y.
Vinuesa, R., A. Theodorou, M. Battaglini, and V. Dignum. 2020b. A Socio-technical Framework
for Digital Contact Tracing. Results in Engineering 8: 100163. ISSN 2590-1230. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2020.100163. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S2590123020300694.
Vuchic, V.R. 2017. Transportation for Livable Cities. Routledge.
Vulova, S., F. Meier, A.D. Rocha, J. Quanz, H. Nouri, and B. Kleinschmit. 2021. Modeling
Urban Evapotranspiration Using Remote Sensing, Flux Footprints, and Artificial Intelligence.
Science of the Total Environment 786: 147293. ISSN 0048-9697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sci-
totenv.2021.147293. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721023640.
W. H. Organization. 2006. The World Health Report 2006: Working Together for Health. World
Health Organization.
W. H. Organization, et al. 2012. High-Level Technical Meeting to Address Health Risks at the
Human-Animal Ecosystems Interfaces: Mexico City, Mexico, 15–17 November 2011.
———. 2016a. Global Strategy on Human Resources for Health: Workforce 2030. WHO.
———. 2016b. Working for Health and Growth: Investing in the Health Workforce. WHO.
W.H.O. 2019. WHO Guideline: Recommendationson Digital Interventions for Health System
Strengthening. World Health Organization (WHO). ISBN 978-92-4-155050-5. http://www.who.
int/reproductivehealth/publications/digital-interventions-health-system-strengthening/en/.
Wakunuma, K., T. Jiya, and S. Aliyu. 2020. Socio-ethical Implications of Using AI in Accelerating
SDG3 in Least Developed Countries. Journal of Responsible Technology 4: 100006. ISSN
2666-6596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2020.100006. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S2666659620300068.
Wang, J.-J., Y.-Y. Jing, C.-F. Zhang, and J.-H. Zhao. 2009. Review on Multi-criteria Decision
Analysis Aid in Sustainable Energy Decision-Making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 13 (9): 2263–2278.
Wang, S., Z. Liu, Y. Rong, B. Zhou, Y. Bai, W. Wei, M. Wang, Y. Guo, and J. Tian. 2019. Deep
Learning Provides a New Computed Tomography-Based Prognostic Biomarker for Recurrence
Prediction in High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer. Radiotherapy and Oncology 132: 171–177.
Wang, B., B. Xie, J. Xuan, and K. Jiao. 2020a. AI-Based Optimization of Pem Fuel Cell Catalyst
Layers for Maximum Power Density Via Data-Driven Surrogate Modeling. Energy Conversion
and Management 205: 112460.
Wang, Z., K. Jiang, P. Yi, Z. Han, and Z. He. 2020b. Ultra-dense Gan for Satellite Imagery Super-
Resolution. Neurocomputing 398: 328–337. ISSN 0925-2312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
neucom.2019.03.106.
West, S.M., M. Whittaker, and K. Crawford. 2019. Discriminating Systems. AI Now.
Wichmann, A., A. Agoub, and M. Kada. 2018. Roofn3d: Deep Learning Training Data for 3d
Building Reconstruction. ISPRS – International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote
Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XLII-2: 1191–1198. https://doi.org/10.5194/
isprs-archives-XLII-2-1191-2018.
Wilson, M., J. Paschen, and L. Pitt. 2021. The Circular Economy Meets Artificial Intelligence (AI):
Understanding the Opportunities of AI for Reverse Logistics. Management of Environmental
Quality: An International Journal 33 (1): 9–25.
Wu, Y., A. Sharifi, P. Yang, H. Borjigin, D. Murakami, and Y. Yamagata. 2018. Mapping Building
Carbon Emissions Within Local Climate Zones in Shanghai. Energy Procedia 152: 815–822.
Wu, C., Y. Chen, C. Peng, Z. Li, and X. Hong. 2019. Modeling and Estimating Aboveground
Biomass of Dacrydium pierrei in China Using Machine Learning with Climate Change.
Journal of Environmental Management 234: 167–179.
Xu, Y., A. Hosny, R. Zeleznik, C. Parmar, T. Coroller, I. Franco, R.H. Mak, and H.J. Aerts. 2019.
Deep Learning Predicts Lung Cancer Treatment Response from Serial Medical Imaging.
Clinical Cancer Research 25 (11): 3266–3275.
Yan, B., F. Hao, and X. Meng. 2021. When Artificial Intelligence Meets Building Energy Efficiency,
a Review Focusing on Zero Energy Building. Artificial Intelligence Review 54 (3): 2193–2220.
Yang, J., P. Gong, R. Fu, M. Zhang, J. Chen, S. Liang, B. Xu, J. Shi, and R.E. Dickinson. 2013.
The Role of Satellite Remote Sensing in Climate Change Studies. Nature Climate Change 3:
875–883.
Yang, Y., H. Guan, O. Batelaan, T.R. McVicar, D. Long, S. Piao, W. Liang, B. Liu, Z. Jin, and
C.T. Simmons. 2016. Contrasting Responses of Water Use Efficiency to Drought Across
Global Terrestrial Ecosystems. Scientific Reports 6 (1): 1–8.
Yang, H., S. Piao, C. Huntingford, S. Peng, P. Ciais, A. Chen, G. Zhou, X. Wang, M. Gao,
and J. Zscheischler. 2019. Strong But Intermittent Spatial Covariations in Tropical Land
Temperature. Geophysical Research Letters 46 (1): 356–364.
Zayyad, M.A., and M. Toycan. 2018. Factors Affecting Sustainable Adoption of e-Health
Technology in Developing Countries: An Exploratory Survey of Nigerian Hospitals from
the Perspective of Healthcare Professionals. PeerJ 6: e4436. ISSN 2167-8359. https://doi.
org/10.7717/peerj.4436. https://peerj.com/articles/4436.
Zeng, D., Z. Cao, and D.B. Neill. 2021. Artificial Intelligence–Enabled Public Health Surveillance –
From Local Detection to Global Epidemic Monitoring and Control. In Artificial Intelligence in
Medicine, 437–453. Elsevier.
Zhang, K., P. Xu, T. Gao, and J. Zhang. 2021a. A Trustworthy Framework of Artificial Intelligence
for Power Grid Dispatching Systems. In 2021 IEEE 1st International Conference on Digital
Twins and Parallel Intelligence (DTPI), 418–421. IEEE.
Zhang, Y., P. Geng, C. Sivaparthipan, and B.A. Muthu. 2021b. Big Data and Artificial Intelligence
Based Early Risk Warning System of Fire Hazard for Smart Cities. Sustainable Energy
Technologies and Assessments 45: 100986. ISSN 2213-1388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
seta.2020.100986. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213138820314144.
Zhao, J., T. Wang, M. Yatskar, V. Ordonez, and K.-W. Chang. 2017. Men Also Like Shopping:
Reducing Gender Bias Amplification Using Corpus-Level Constraints. In Proceedings of the
2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2979–2989. https://
doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05707-810.18653/v1/D17-1323. https://github.com/uclanlp/
reducingbias.
Zou, J., and L. Schiebinger. 2018. AI Can Be Sexist and Racist – It’s Time to Make It Fair. Nature
559 (7714): 324–326. ISSN 0028-0836. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05707-8. http://
www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05707-8.
Artificial Intelligence: Poverty Alleviation,
Healthcare, Education, and Reduced
Inequalities in a Post-COVID World
Margaret A. Goralski and Tay Keong Tan
Abstract On October 25, 2015, the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN)
set forth an agenda which included 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and
169 targets to transform the world by 2030. The agenda set forth a plan of action
that recognized a myriad of challenges which, if surmounted, could empower peo-
ple, benefit the planet, and create an impetus for worldwide prosperity.
Due to the coronavirus pandemic and its economic and social fallout, the world
today is not on track to attain the SDGs by the year 2030. However, the disruptive
impact of the pandemic on many areas of life among other things was in a sense a
“game changer” with respect to our (human) approaches to artificial intelligence
(AI) and to AI itself. The global pandemic caused a major shift with regard to AI. It
revealed that in this day and time AI is a necessity for the flourishing of humanity
worldwide. It is no longer a luxury. Developed and developing countries alike were
caught unaware by the COVID disruption. All experienced gaps in healthcare and
education delivery and increased poverty in one form or another. In this situation, AI
turned out to be not merely useful, it quickly proved itself to be indispensable. In a
world that is still struggling to recover from the pandemic, AI has and will continue
to play a major role in transforming the work of poverty alleviation, hence affecting
the advancement of the poverty-related SDGs.
The chapter will present examples of AI implementation in areas of the world
where poverty is significant: China, India, and two countries in Africa. It will look
at rural poverty specifically, although urban poverty is growing at expediential rates,
and examine how AI has affected the work of alleviating poverty through improving
healthcare delivery and strengthening access to education. The analysis will delve
into the advancement of specific SDGs with the use of AI, such as SDG #1 no
M. A. Goralski (*)
Quinnipiac University, Hamden, CT, USA
T. K. Tan
Radford University, Radford, VA, USA

98 M. A. Goralski and T. K. Tan
poverty, SDG #3 good health and well-being, SDG #4 quality education, and SDG
#10 reduced inequalities. Finally, this chapter will draw policy implications for the
work of fighting extreme poverty in a post-COVID and increasingly AI-enabled world.
Keywords Artificial intelligence · Poverty alleviation · Global pandemic
1 The UN SDGs
The SDGs were meant to stimulate action and define the critical importance of each
goal as well as the interrelatedness of the 17 goals. No poverty (end poverty in
all its forms everywhere) is the first of the SDGs.
When the UN General Assembly gathered in 2015, there were rising inequalities
and disparities of opportunity, wealth, and power in many countries and communi-
ties around the world. The preamble to the UN SDGs document states: “We recog-
nize that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme
poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sus-
tainable development” (Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development 2015, 1).
While millions have escaped extreme poverty, many more remain trapped.
Members of the General Assembly believed that with a spread of information and
technology, and the interconnectedness of the world, there was a great potential to
“bridge the digital divide” and develop universal knowledge of technological inno-
vations in medicine, education, and other fields (Transforming our world: the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development 2015).
Poverty has been a challenge to human societies throughout history. It has been
reduced but never diminished to the point where the world could declare an eradica-
tion of this malaise. Based on the UN SDGs Report (2021), the global poverty rate
is expected to rise to 7% or approximately 600 million people in 2030. Thus, SDG
#1 will be missing the target goal of eradicating poverty or achieving “no poverty”
by that year. Extreme poverty1 has risen from 8.4% in 2019 to 9.5% in 2020 mostly
due to the worldwide impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals Report 2021 2021, 28). This was the first rise in
global extreme poverty in a generation.
Governmental social protection measures in 2020 covered only about 46.9% of
the global population, leaving approximately four billion people with no social
1
The World Bank updated the nominal poverty line from $1.25 to $1.90 per day in 2015. The
change in dollar value of the line reflects changes in the estimated purchasing power parity (PPP)
of the dollar in poor countries. The line seeks to keep the real value constant even though relative
prices change. The PPP exchange rates allow a comparison of the prices of goods and services
across countries. This same poverty line is used by the United Nations and others to track progress
in the elimination of extreme poverty and to measure the accountability of the international com-
munity in reporting progress (Principles and Practice in Measuring Global Poverty 2016).
Artificial Intelligence: Poverty Alleviation, Healthcare, Education, and Reduced… 99
safety net (United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Report 2021 2021, 29).
The uneven access to essential public services, like healthcare and vaccines, further
exacerbated the problems of the poorest of the poor and widened the inequality gap
in countries and communities.
2 A Brief Exploration of Various Theories of Poverty
There have been two major approaches to the sustenance problem (preventing or
alleviating poverty, especially famine) throughout history. One approach was to
secure enough food for the existing population by what would be called today a
“rainy day fund.” This approach can be illustrated by the Biblical story about Joseph
advising Pharaoh how to prepare the land of Egypt for the imminent 7 years of disas-
trous crops by saving food for the future (Genesis 41: 25–36). The other approach
was that represented by Plato (in The Republic) and Aristotle (in The Politics), who
both focused on adjusting the size of human population to the amount of available
food. Both of these approaches survived for centuries in Western tradition.
Due to new ways of thinking in economics and philosophy in the mid-eighteenth
century, the First Poverty Enlightenment occurred near the end of the century. It
rejected the view that inequalities were inevitable and brought about a new respect for
poor people (Ravallion 2016). The economy became a tool for advancing human wel-
fare and included poor people. Adam Smith, Scottish economist and philosopher, was
instrumental in this incorporation of human welfare into the economy (Ravallion 2016).
In the 1960s and 1970s, a comprehensive anti-poverty policy was put into place
that viewed poverty as unacceptable. Poverty was no longer viewed as inevitable,
but instead as something that society could eliminate (Ravallion 2016). (For a more
detailed study of poverty see Ravallion (2016)).
During the time of the Industrial Revolution, the views of British economist
Thomas Robert Malthus (1776–1834) enjoyed great popularity. Malthus, clearly in
agreement with Plato and Aristotle, argued that the power of population to increase
is infinitely greater than the power of the earth to produce subsistence; therefore, if
population increases faster than the food supply, there will necessarily follow fam-
ine and poverty. If the population is left unchecked, then it will increase in a geo-
metrical ratio. However, subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio,
therefore, the numbers would clearly show the immensity of the first power in com-
parison to the second (Malthus 1803).
Although the theory of Malthus is not as specific as that of Plato or Aristotle, he
states that like plants and animals in nature, if human population increases without
subsistence to nourish it and room to grow, then population will never be able to
increase beyond the lowest nourishment capable of supporting it. Therefore, the
intense human need to continuously acquire food for sustenance would necessarily
be severely felt proliferating various forms of misery, famine, and fear.
Malthus argued that the Parish Laws of England (Poor Laws) had contributed to
raise the price of provisions and lowered the price of labor, thus contributing to
impoverishment since labor was the only possession of the poor. He believed that
money cannot raise a poor man and enable him to live a better life without propor-
tionately depressing others within the same class. If the poor were given unculti-
vated land, and made to produce upon the land, then man and other members of
society would benefit. However, if a poor man was given money, and the food pro-
duction of the country were to remain the same, then that man has only been given
a larger share of the produce which he cannot receive without diminishing the shares
of produce for others in society (Malthus 1803).
Ester Boserup (1910–1999), Danish economist, proposed a theory that challenged
the theory of Malthus. She argued that agricultural developments are caused by pop-
ulation trends, not the other way around (Boserup 1970). Boserup believed that as
population pressure increases, agricultural technology would result from population
changes, therefore factoring innovation into the solution. Her theory was concerned
with the effects of population on changes to agriculture, not on the causes of popula-
tion growth. Boserup’s approach was in alignment with Joseph’s. It basically states
that a nation needs to produce food enough to sustain its population for the future.
There is also a third approach which was developed in recent times, i.e., since the
Industrial Revolution, by the people who claim that proper application of sophisti-
cated technologies could lead to the alleviation of the sustainability problem. The
most powerful and promising technological tool that humankind possesses pres-
ently is AI.
3 The Relevant Connection of AI to Poverty Alleviation
[AI] is the science and engineering of making intelligent machines, especially intelligent
computer programs. It is related to the similar task of using computers to understand human
intelligence, but AI does not have to confine itself to methods that are biologically observ-
able. (McCarthy 2004)
McCarthy’s was one of the first definitions of AI; however, as technology has
evolved over time, various alternate definitions of AI have been created. One of the
most recent, and the one used in this chapter, is that of Amazon, “Artificial
Intelligence (AI) is the field of computer science dedicated to solving cognitive
problems commonly associated with human intelligence, such as learning, problem
solving, and pattern recognition” (What is Artificial Intelligence? n.d.).
There are currently three general categories of AI – artificial narrow intelligence
(ANI), artificial general intelligence (AGI), and artificial super intelligence (ASI)
(Goralski and Tan, Artificial intelligence and sustainable development 2020). AI,
which is currently in use, is in the category of ANI. Some examples include Google’s
Alexa, Apple’s Siri, and IBM’s Watson (Artificial Intelligence (AI) 2020).
To provide concrete examples for our analyses of the impact of AI on world
poverty and development issues, we include studies of emerging practices and new
technology applications in two sectors that are important to those who are living in
extreme poverty – healthcare and education.
4 Healthcare
Healthy lives and the promotion of well-being for people of all ages is SDG #3.
Recent AI innovations in healthcare and education could bring profound changes
to the alleviation of poverty in most of the world, in particular in rural areas.
Unfortunately, advances in healthcare via AI have been slow to migrate into poverty-
stricken areas.
This section focuses on rural healthcare in China and two countries in Africa:
Malawi, and Nigeria where much poverty still exists. It will draw connections
between some AI applications in healthcare and solutions in the field.
According to the UN Population Division and the World Bank, the estimated
population of China in 2020 is 1,402,112,000 people. The rural population is
38.57% (Rural population China 2020) of that total. The approximate population of
Malawi is 19,129,952 people. The rural population is 82.57% in 2020 (Rural popu-
lation Malawi 2020). Nigeria has a population of approximately 206,139,590 peo-
ple in 2020 with a rural population of approximately 48.04% (Rural
Population – Nigeria 2019).
The World Health Organization’s data on nursing and midwifery showed a global
shortage of healthcare workers, specifically midwives and nurses, who make up
approximately 50% of the shortage. The largest shortages are in Southeast Asia and
Africa (Nursing and midwifery 2020). The number of practicing physicians avail-
able in rural areas is approximately 2.0 per 1000 people in China as of 2017
(Physicians (per 1000 people) 2020) and 0.4 physicians per thousand in Nigeria
(Physicians (per 1000 people) – Nigeria 2018); there are no statistics available for
the percentage of doctors per thousand for Malawi.
Besides inadequate access to qualified healthcare and shortages of nurses/mid-
wifes and doctors, there are several inherent challenges that limit the access of peo-
ple in rural areas from receiving adequate healthcare services and fully utilizing
advanced technology in medical care: lack of transportation to where healthcare is
available, or an inability to pay for transportation if it is available; lack of access to
reliable electrical power supplies and broadband access to the Internet; and inade-
quate education and training of medical workers.
AI can help assuage this lack of medical treatment and access to other advanced
technology in the healthcare industry by alleviating the disparity in healthcare ser-
vices between urban and rural populations. AI-based data collection could identify
people with symptoms and create realistic solutions that allow healthcare providers
to develop treatment pathways that were not available in the past (Kopparapu and
Kopparupu 2020). AI-powered diagnostics could use a patient’s unique history as a
baseline against which small deviations would flag possible health conditions that
need further investigation and treatment.
There are three levels of medical AI that could alleviate the problems of health-
care in remote areas if factored into developmental plans: basic, moderate, and high
level, but these three levels would usually require the involvement of government,
policymakers, technology-equipment manufacturers, and healthcare workers from
baseline rural communities to connect with the top-ranked hospitals in urban areas
(Guo and Li 2018).
China offers an illustrative example of the levels of healthcare highlighted above.
Although it has emerged as a global economic superpower in recent decades, there
is still a huge relatively poor rural population and unequal distribution of healthcare.
There are 300 million people in China suffering from chronic diseases (Ho 2018)
like heart disease, strokes, diabetes, and chronic lung diseases. As the world’s
second-largest economy, China’s cradle-to-grave system of socialized medicine has
improved life expectancy and maternal mortality rates. However, this lengthening of
life and reduction in mortality rates is taxing the healthcare system to a point where
it cannot support its population (Wee 2018).
In 2016, Chinese Premier Xi Jinping set forth a blueprint to improve healthcare
services and called it “Healthy China 2030.” It was to strengthen health innovation
and make medical treatment available for all. The Chinese government formed a
collaborative platform with technology firms and healthcare providers to promote
innovative ideas and to highlight new projects in “intelligent medicine.”2 Beginning
in January 2018, a rural dweller could have an electrocardiograph and blood test
conducted in a village AI clinic to be reviewed by a doctor at a big city hospital that
is located miles away. These new healthcare services would prevent patients from
having to travel and stand in long lines hoping to see a physician after many hours
of waiting. The three-tier system for delivery of rural health services consists of
county-level hospitals, township healthcare facilities, and village clinics.
As of 2018, 349 villages in Henan province received mobile all-in-one diagnos-
tic stations that are highly transportable, can conduct 11 common medical tests, and
automatically upload data for online consultation (Dai 2018). This is part of the
rural healthcare program cooperative agreement between the Chinese government
authorities and one of the top Chinese tech giants, Tencent.3
The government has engendered an oligopolistic marketplace that fosters com-
petition between healthcare technology firms like Good Doctor and We Doctor to
serve the rural populations and innovate new systems and services in the healthcare
industry. We Doctor educates village medical workers on the use of AI equipment.
Through it, medical records are automatically uploaded and generate a diagnosis,
which is then reviewed and referenced by a doctor at an urban hospital. Good Doctor
is an extension of a financial conglomerate Ping An Insurance Group, which is
2
Intelligent medicine is a term that originated with Dr. Ronald L. Hoffman in his book of the same
title. Hoffman defined the term as a complete spectrum of healthcare options, but the term has
evolved since his book was published in 1997. The State Council of China defines it as integration
of artificial intelligence (AI) technology with medical care to improve healthcare services. For
more information see Lung (2018, May 8) China launches national association to speed up integration
of AI with healthcare. https://opengovasia.com/china-launches-national-association-to-speed-up-
integration-of-ai-with-healthcare/
3
Tencent has a broad portfolio of interests similar to Google’s parent company Alphabet. First
quarter earnings 2020 showed revenue of 108 billion Chinese yuan (US $15.2 billion). For more
information see Kleinman (2020, August 7). What is Tencent? BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/
news/technology-53696743
constructing smart clinics with remote consulting services. Diagnostics are powered
by AI, healthcare workers are trained in rural villages, and the health statistics gath-
ered in Chinese rural areas creates a foundation for the development and adoption
of these new innovations and similar AI-driven applications for the future.
With Chinese companies already established relationships in areas of Africa
through President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI),4 AI technology is
expected to be marketed to other rural populations in Africa, South Asia, and other
parts of the world as part of its long-term development plan. However, there are
worries that China’s infrastructure investments may lay a debt trap for governments
in the future (Chatzky and McBride 2020).
According to the World Health Organization, Africa carries 25% of the world’s
disease burden but its share of global health expenditures is less than 1%. African
governments need to provide access to basic healthcare and train more community
health workers. AI again can help mitigate this problem. We highlight two countries
in Africa, Malawi and Nigeria.
Malawi is a landlocked country in the southeastern area of Africa. The chal-
lenges are inequitable distribution of resources, fragmented services, and shortages
of staff. Approximately 28% of Malawi’s economy is based on agriculture, fishing,
and forestry (Makwero 2018). It is among five sub-Saharan African countries that
present a very high maternal mortality rate (Yaya et al. 2016). A brief explanation of
the four levels of the Malawi healthcare system follows (Makwero 2018):
• The District Health Management Team (DHMT) operates from a district hospi-
tal. It monitors and evaluates the district healthcare activities.
• Health centers are staffed by nurses and medical assistants or clinical officers
(mid-level practitioners). Nurses largely deal with primary maternal and child
health services.
• The community links with the primary care facility via a team of health surveil-
lance assistants (HSAs), community health workers (CHWs), and traditional
healers. (HSAs receive 6 weeks of initial health preservice training and usually
reside in the community.)
• In the community HSAs are seen as “doctors” (Makwero 2018).
Malawi’s healthcare delivery system is based on primary healthcare (PHC)
(Makwero 2018). The study of Yaya et al. (2016) examined the impact of wealth
inequality on maternal healthcare services. They conclude that the high mortality
rate from maternity hinders Malawi from achieving the maternal health-related
mandates of the UN SDGs and recommend an equity-based policy to include
4
China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) (considered by some to be the New Silk Road) is a vast
collection of development and investment projects that would eventually stretch from East Asia to
Europe expanding the political and economic influence of China. Development of the Asia-Africa
Growth Corridor (AAGC) is a part of this BRI expansion plan. For more information refer to the
Council on Foreign Relations “China’s Massive Belt and Road Initiative” 2020 January 28. https://
www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative
education in rural areas and solutions to issues related to a quality gap in the mater-
nal healthcare services (MHS) in urban vs. rural areas.
An article on faith-based provision of sexual and reproductive healthcare in
Malawi (the second largest healthcare providers) stated that faith-based providers
were less likely to share the national family planning guidelines than public provid-
ers (Tafesse and Chalkley 2021). This specifically was the case with family plan-
ning methods, condom promotion, HIV prevention, and dissemination of information
on sexually transmitted infections (STIs) (Tafesse and Chalkley 2021). Faith-based
providers deliver approximately 70% of services in Africa.
AI in the form of mobile phones has been incorporated into Malawi health cen-
ters to provide crucial healthcare services to people in rural areas through text mes-
saging. A person’s mobile phone becomes a microcosmic health clinic – a small
representative system within a larger system (Oyaro 2016–2017). The basic mobile
phone becomes a clinic; hence, a patient can get the information needed from a doc-
tor without having to travel to a clinic. Text message services give reminders about
taking medication and tips about how to live a healthier life. It is convenient and
easy for a patient to connect with a healthcare provider at any time of the day and is
especially helpful for pregnant women. They can receive prenatal and postnatal
information as well as general health information like using mosquito nets to pre-
vent malaria, the risk of mother to child HIV transmission, and general healthcare
advice. AirTel, a mobile phone company, supports the system and serves more than
500,000 mothers and children (Oyaro 2016–2017).
There were 2.81 million Internet users in Malawi in January 2020 and 8.58 mil-
lion mobile connections; This is equal to approximately 45% of the population
(Kemp 2020). Another study found that most respondents owned or had use of a
basic mobile phone even though there was some inequality in access by region
(Marron et al. 2020).
The Malawi government, which is trying to improve the maternal mortality rates
has fully endorsed this innovative way of providing healthcare remotely. This AI
implementation fully supports SDG #3 to ensure healthy lives and promote well-
being of all ages. AI has been able to provide specific information and care to
women and children without bias and without inflicting the inconveniences of travel
to a rural clinic.
Nigeria is a west African country located on the Gulf of Guinea. It is potentially
one of the wealthiest countries in Africa due primarily to its large oil resources.
Unfortunately, the economy is devastated by domestic unrest. More than 60% of the
Nigerian populace live in rural areas with extreme shortages of healthcare facilities
and practitioners due to location isolation and lack of opportunity (Olaronke and
Oluwaseun 2016). Access to healthcare is a struggle due to underfunded national
health systems, a lack of basic infrastructure – clean water and electricity – and a
shortage of healthcare workers (Tafirenyika 2016–2017).
High maternal and child mortality rates in most of Africa (just like the two coun-
tries discussed here) remain a major concern. Infections related to the delivery pro-
cess and communicable diseases are the leading causes of death. “Every day in
Nigeria, 257 babies die within their first month of life, and 40,000 women die from
pregnancy related causes each year” (Helping half a million pregnant women in
Nigeria get better antenatal care with a portable ultrasound device 2019). Nigeria is
ranked number one for maternal mortality in sub-Saharan Africa (Helping half a
million pregnant women in Nigeria get better antenatal care with a portable ultra-
sound device 2019).
General Electric (GE), a US corporation, has begun to tap into new technologies
that can diagnose health conditions and diseases more efficiently and accurately
(Rao and Joseph 2016–2017). One AI innovation is Vscan, a non-invasive ultra-
sound device the size of a mobile phone, which provides real-time high-resolution
images used in medical fields such as cardiology, obstetrics, and gynecology (Rao
and Joseph 2016–2017).
GE, creator of Vscan, along with the US and Nigerian governments invested $20
million on its Healthymagination Mother & Child Initiative (HCMI) to screen
mothers in Nigeria to identify at-risk pregnancies (Lawrence 2016). It is an asset in
prenatal and antenatal care for mothers who do not have access to a healthcare facil-
ity in their rural location (Rao and Joseph 2016–2017). It is easy for midwives and
healthcare workers to navigate with a touch screen that can detect birth defects in
fetuses and monitor high-risk pregnancies to determine the position of the baby
prior to birth. Since the scan is immediate and non-invasive, it is openly accepted by
pregnant women and caregivers.
The program began in 2017, with the expectation to help 560,000 expectant
Nigerian women in rural areas by utilizing 1.1 million antenatal scans and hours of
training and mentoring of midwives and antenatal primary caregivers (Helping half
a million pregnant women in Nigeria get better antenatal care with a portable ultra-
sound device 2019). HCMI provides the scans free of charge or at a very low cost to
pregnant women in rural areas. The transport expense to secondary hospitals is also
averted.
AI, in this example, easily fits within SDG #3, ensuring healthy lives and pro-
moting the well-being of all. For women in Nigeria, the experience of having an
ultrasound scan can now be an exciting part of their pregnancy. It allows them to see
their baby prior to its birth with the knowledge that their pregnancy is being moni-
tored for any possible problems. Additionally, a prospective mother knows that the
midwife or healthcare worker has been trained to use the equipment properly.
Additionally, this AI initiative meets the challenge of the SDGs as a plan of action
for people.
5 Education
SDG #4 is quality education.

Currently, there is very little, if any, doubt that universal global education has
immense importance for the flourishing of humanity. Access to education and alle-
viation of poverty are closely related. In poverty-ridden rural areas, there are two
main obstacles (and many lesser ones, some of which are discussed briefly in this
section) that significantly slow down the spread of education.
Education is expensive; in most countries, poor people do not have the financial
means necessary to secure even basic education for their children. This is the prob-
lem that the UN will hopefully help to solve on a global scale. The other serious
obstacle is the organization of the educational process which currently is still mostly
mimicking the factory model dating back to the Industrial Revolution. This model
requires students (just like in the case of factory workers) to be physically present at
the imposed time in the imposed place, with penalties being built into the system for
not meeting this requirement.
In many rural areas, it is physically very difficult or prohibitively expensive (or
both) to fulfill such requirements. However, this problem may be remedied by solu-
tions sooner than expected due to the challenge posed to education systems world-
wide by the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a need to look for solutions outside of
the factory model. Technology, in particular AI, proved to be a very effective and
useful educational tool both in urban and rural settings.
AI could bring education to children and adults, especially through the prolifera-
tion of mobile phones to reach those who were previously unable to gain access to
schools. Many people in these communities already use a basic mobile phone on a
regular basis; hence, AI could be adapted to this readily available platform to allevi-
ate poverty in the world’s rural poor with necessary cooperation from that segment
of the population.
Educated children will probably revise their worldviews and value systems,
which may result in generational gaps between children and their parents. This is a
possibility not to be taken lightly because of the potentially very serious emotional
distress it can cause members of both generations and the negative impact on the
family dynamics. The fear of this occurrence in rural areas is often (next to the need
to keep home “the working hands” of children, instead of sending them to school)
the source of parents’ reluctance to support their children’s education in excess of
their own.
Formal education can empower girls and young women with knowledge and
newfound independence that breaks them free from dependence on the men in their
lives. In addition, through education girls and young women can better their own
lives and benefit their community and family through better health and delayed mar-
riage and childbirth (Brownell 2020). However, one must not treat this issue lightly
since it may also create a potential negative impact on the lives of girls, especially
in rural areas, for instance where difficulty may arise to find a husband, especially
if males in the area are less educated.
In a traditional setting (the “factory model”), a teacher’s knowledge is transferred
to students by presentation or interactive activities. Students read the same text-
book, share the same teacher, and learn from the same curriculum. Educational
knowledge is transferred directly from one human to another (Goralski and Górniak-
Kocikowska, Education in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: The will to listen as a
new pedagogical challenge 2019). The quality of that education depends on the
physical presence of the transferrer of knowledge and the listening ability and will
of the recipient (Weifeng 2019; Goralski and Górniak-Kocikowska, Education in

the Era of Artificial Intelligence: The will to listen as a new pedagogical challenge
2019). AI has the power to change this age-old system of knowledge transfer.
AI education could be customized to a child’s learning capability and needs
(Rouhiainen 2019). It can be made interactive with the student, dynamic, and visual
to enhance the learning experience (Goralski and Górniak-Kocikowska, Education
in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: The will to listen as a new pedagogical chal-
lenge 2019). It can be programmed to cater to the special needs of a child who is
falling behind other students. AI enhanced education for poverty alleviation could
enable children to acquire skills and knowledge that would benefit their family and
perhaps change their future and financial situation. However, for that result to occur,
broadband and Internet access would have to be available to ideally all people in
rural as well as urban areas.
India is an interesting case in point for our study of AI’s impact on education of
the poor as it is home to 430 million children between the ages of 0 and 18: The
country has the largest population of children in the world (Kavishwar 2018).
Almost 60% of students in rural areas lack basic reading skills; one survey found
that nearly 50% of high school students cannot solve basic mathematics problems,
and almost 50% drop out of rural schools by the age of 14 (Kavishwar 2018).
AI could help by introducing interactive learning facilitated by digitized tools,
such as smart-boards, LCD screens, and multimedia videos, to make the classroom
interesting and engaging to students. Teachers could present material remotely in
several locations by utilizing interactive digital platforms. These new tools and
remote teaching opportunities could overcome the obstacles created by travel and
transportation. It could assist to assuage the shortage of teachers in rural schools, as
well as improve attendance in classes on a regular basis, thus reducing the rural
school dropout rate.
One Tamil Nadu-based woman, social entrepreneur K. Suriya Probha, decided to
take on the mission of closing the AI education gap in rural India by teaching digital
skills like coding and robotics to children (Bhatia 2019). She was inspired by Indian
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Digital India Campaign and the Chinese AI guru
Fei-Fei Li, who believes that AI education can be a great enabler for school-age
children. Probha saw it as her moral and social responsibility to take AI education
to the economically disadvantaged population. She is working on a program that
will enable a teacher who uses AI as a teaching tool to respond to student questions
with real-time answers and even identify the emotions and gestures of a child during
the interaction (Bhatia 2019). In the case of healthcare, the government through
innovative partnership with academia and industry has spearheaded the use of AI
systems in education and could improve the quality of education in rural villages
in India.
COVID-19 has had a huge impact on the education system of India. Children
across states, regions, caste, and gender have been affected (Impact of COVID-19
on School Education in India: What are the Budgetary Implications? 2020). Shutting
down schools and shifting children to digital platforms has increased inequalities
and pushed children out of the officially organized educational process due to the
existing digital divide (Impact of COVID-19 on School Education in India: What

are the Budgetary Implications? 2020). This will have a long-lasting effect on the
children of India, not just in education but also in children’s healthcare and nutri-
tion. The Indian government is exploring both short-term and long-term policy solu-
tions to address some of the issues delineated by the pandemic (Impact of COVID-19
on School Education in India: What are the Budgetary Implications? 2020).
In China, the Ministry of Education announced an experimental pilot program
establishing a remote synchronous link between poor rural areas and Beijing
Foreign Studies University (Weifeng 2019). Students in remote impoverished areas
could gain learning experience remotely through shared online resources and access
to more qualified and experienced teachers in urban centers.
Over the past few years, the Chinese government has invested in AI-enabled
teaching and the learning of students through platforms that have been significantly
expanded. Tech companies, startups, and educational leaders have embraced the
opportunity to overhaul the Chinese educational system. Currently, tens of millions
of students in China use AI to learn through extracurricular tutoring programs,
through digital learning platforms, or in their main classrooms (Hao 2019). It is the
biggest experiment in AI-facilitated education in the world.
Squirrel AI, which is at the forefront of the AI education revolution in China,
uses master teachers – some the best in China – to develop school curriculum (Hao
2019). Education is disseminated via a laptop computer. The teacher monitors stu-
dents via a real-time dashboard. One Hangzhou regional director states, “There are
no sounds of teachers lecturing” (Hao 2019); hence, there is silence in the physical
classroom in which the students receive their AI instruction.
The outcome of the educational experiment is yet to be assessed, but it has piqued
the interest of Silicon Valley, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation, and John Couch, Apple’s vice president of education. These
innovations in educational development could circumvent some of the most endemic
obstacles to education especially in countries with rural poverty – lack of enough
teachers, lack of enough money to fund education, and lack of motivation for stu-
dents to attend school.
In China, it is believed that there are three things that have pushed AI education
forward: tax breaks and other incentives for AI ventures to improve student learn-
ing, teacher training/school management, and the high level of academic competi-
tion (Hao 2019). Additionally, Chinese entrepreneurs are utilizing the massive
amount of data that they gather from China’s immense population to train and refine
their algorithms to heighten the educational experience of students, but also as a
means of creating cutting-edge products for enhancing education.
There may be a time lapse between those who acquire enhanced AI educational
opportunities first and those at the end of the receiving line, but these new advances
in AI education are currently the most innovative improvements in education for
global rural communities in a long history characterized by lack of access to pri-
mary education and developmental exclusion from education for some students.
Preliminary observations of Yang (2020) showed that no aspect of higher educa-
tion in China was untouched after the COVID-caused disruption. China’s attention
focused on the effectiveness of e-learning and global student mobility (Yang 2020).
Under the dictates of the Ministry of Education (MOE), brick and mortar schools
were closed, and existing virtual learning platforms were enhanced in conjunction
with seven of the largest EdTech companies (Ning and Corcoran 2020). These plat-
forms allowed students to tap into streaming courses from their mobile phone or
computer (Ning and Corcoran 2020). In remote areas of China, where access to
bandwidth and computers was uneven, educators were prohibited from introducing
new topics so that children without access to adequate technology would not become
even more disadvantaged (Ning and Corcoran 2020).
A further study found that the main impetus for all of these initiatives was the
focus on epidemic prevention and control and the safety and health of teachers and
students (Xue et al. 2021). The central government worked in concert with local
governments to suspend classes according to the specific situations while moving
education online in an orderly manner (Xue et al. 2021). The Department of
Education strengthened the telecommunication networks and provided hardware,
software, and technical support to ensure a smooth transition (Xue et al. 2021).
Africa is behind the rest of the world when it comes to embracing AI, innovation,
and machine learning in higher education (Fomunyam 2020). Some of the issues
that AI could combat are overpopulated classrooms, heavy teaching loads, lack of
research-experienced faculty, and embracing the information technology infrastruc-
ture (Fomunyam 2020). Better knowledge of digital technologies by African intel-
lectuals could speed up the process of improved education in impoverished areas. It
could make the process of learning dynamic and offer options like customized and
personalized learning to students.
Unfortunately, most African governments are not interested in the research activ-
ities of academia. Hence, since investment in research is not forthcoming, the path
to new innovations that could have been gleaned from expanded research streams is
not captured within the knowledge base of the university or the continent. The value
placed on research may need to improve for African scholars to take advantage of
available opportunities to solve the problems that plague the African continent and
academia itself (Mafenya 2014). Fomunyam (2020) states that most African schol-
ars have no interest in generating new knowledge and since most of the materials
used for teaching in higher education are written in Western languages, absorbing
new material is limited.
The impact of COVID-19 on education in Africa is more similar to the disrup-
tions in India than the systematic control of the situation in China. Research of
Human Rights Watch found that school closures exacerbated inequalities that had
already existed in Africa (Impact of Covid-19 on Children’s Education in Africa
2020). Children who had already been excluded from a quality education were most
affected, while many children received no education across the continent after
schools closed in March of 2020. Another study found that higher education popula-
tions were most affected due to closure of higher education institutions across the
continent (Koninckx et al. 2021). Universities in Africa were not able to quickly
move classes online; therefore, campuses were closed and teaching suspended
(Koninckx et al. 2021).
AI is fast becoming one of the most important tools to both urban and rural edu-
cation in the twenty-first century. It has already made its way into the curriculum of
many educational programs worldwide and it has begun to change the education of
the world’s rural poor. In most instances the use of AI is very welcome and accepted
in schools, because there are far too few teachers for the number of students who are
at school age in developing countries such as China, India, and Africa.
China has set AI and machine learning technologies as a strategy for the future
of the country. It seeks to become the number one artificial intelligence hub world-
wide by the year 2030 by combining the forces of government, industry, academia,
and technology giants. India, while having the backing of the government, has not
formulated strong ties with industry, academia, and its technology giants as is the
case with China. Africa has not made artificial intelligence and machine learning
essential in its educational system. It will ultimately pay the price for that decision
in the future by forfeiting the advances in knowledge that could be gleaned through
academic research and innovative teaching technologies.
6 Conclusion
The problem of poverty is complex. Poverty has been studied through the ages, but
it has never been alleviated. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020–2021
increased poverty due to economic downturns worldwide which will make it diffi-
cult for the world to meet SDG #1, no poverty, by 2030. Theories have been set forth
by philosophers, historians have followed the path of poverty, and economists have
tracked the various stages and thought patterns of societies on the topic of poverty,
but poverty like many of the challenges and goals set forth in the Global Compact
for sustainable development is threatening to thwart humanity.
AI can approach the challenges of poverty through a new lens, perhaps a wider
lens than humanity has in the past, and with fewer cultural and societal biases. AI is
making small inroads in the fields of healthcare and education, delivering healthcare
to people in rural areas of developing and developed countries through mobile tele-
phones and AI-enabled equipment in packages small enough to be carried into areas
not reachable in the past. AI can communicate with people one on one through an
inexpensive mobile phone, take needed medical diagnostic equipment to rural areas,
allow academics to interact with students remotely, and bring dynamic ideas and
new innovations to additional students.
One of the most substantial outcomes of this research is the realization that gov-
ernment, industry, academia, and society must work together in tandem to reach the
sustainable development goals. No one entity can overcome the challenges on their
own. All should work on a policy together regarding the global alleviation of pov-
erty. Governments and industry need to be selfless and provide for the people within
society. They need to create the safety nets for all people. Industry is usually ahead
of government in innovation and technology. It can bring forth breakthroughs that
will assist people in ways that government cannot. Academia can share the
knowledge of government and industry to create the leaders of the future with a
sustainability mindset. Society needs to accept the new innovations that AI can
offer, the better health options, the data that can be collected to combat the diseases
that have raged throughout history, and the peace of mind that comes from knowing
that a healthy child will be delivered into the world. Technology, especially AI,
should be used for the good of disadvantaged people.
The last of the SDGs mentioned at the beginning of this chapter is #10, reduced
inequalities. The insight and future of AI, its unbiased approach to dissemination of
knowledge, and its ability to go beyond humanity to reach the objectives set forth in
the SDGs will reduce inequalities, but humanity must also play its part in bringing
these innovative new technologies to all areas of the world and all people.
Our observations from the examples in this chapter serve to highlight AI-enabled
programs that are currently being implemented in some of the countries with the
highest percentage of people living in poverty. The study will create a foundation
for future research to define how the design and application of AI would affect
world poverty, could alleviate poverty, and shape the future of the sustainable devel-
opment goals. Aristotle created the concept of flourishing ethics; people today can
aim at the flourishing of humanity. COVID-19 could be viewed as not just a major
disruption in the progress of humanity, but also as a guide to fill the existing gaps in
the infrastructure worldwide.
References
Artificial Intelligence (AI). June 3, 2020. https://www.ibm.com/cloud/learn/

what-is-artificial-intelligence.
Bhatia, Richa. 2019. This Social Entrepreneur Is Closing the AI Education Gap By Reaching
Out to Rural India. analyticsindiamag.com. January 24. https://analyticsindiamag.com/
this-social-entrepreneur-is-closing-the-ai-education-gap-by-reaching-out-to-rural-india/.
Boserup, Ester. 1970. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth – The Economics of Agrarian
Change Under Population Pressure. London: Routledge.
Brownell, Ginanne. 2020. Girls Have Greater Access to Education Than Ever. October 9. https://
foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/09/girls-women-education-equality-unesco-global-education-
monitoring-report/.
Chatzky, Andrew, and James McBride. 2020. China’s Massive Belt and Road Initiative. January
28. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative.
Dai, Sarah. 2018. A Look at How China Is Using Technology to Improve Rural Access to Quality
Health Care. South China Morning Post. March 6. www.scmp.com/tech/article/2135880/
look-how-china-using-technology-improve-rural-access-quality-health-care.
Fomunyam, Kehdinga George. 2020. Theorising Machine Learning as an Alternative Pathway
for Higher Education in Africa. International Journal of Education and Practice 8: 268–277.
Goralski, Margaret A., and Krystyna Górniak-Kocikowska. 2019. Education in the Era of Artificial
Intelligence: The Will to Listen as a New Pedagogical Challenge. Ethos, 3(125), 152–198.
Goralski, Margaret A., and Tay Keong Tan. 2020. Artificial Intelligence and Sustainable
Development. The International Journal of Management Education 18: 1–13.
Guo, Jonathan, and Bin Li. 2018. The Application of Medical Artificial Intelligence Technology in
Rural Areas of Developing Countries. Health Equity 2: 174.
Hao, Karen. 2019. China Has Started a Grand Experiment in AI Education. It Could Reshape
How the World Learns. MIT Technology Review. August 2. https://www.technologyreview.
com/2019/08/02/131198/china-squirrel-has-started-a-grand-experiment-in-ai-education-it-
could-reshape-how-the/.
Helping Half a Million Pregnant Women in Nigeria Get Better Antenatal Care with a Portable
Ultrasound Device. May 22, 2019. https://www.gehealthcare.com/article/helping-half-a-
million-pregnant-women-in-nigeria-get-better-antenatal-care-with-a-portable-ultrasound-
device/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=GESocial&utm_content=vscan+access+nige
ria&utm_campaign=WHA72.
Ho, Andy. 2018. AI Can Solve China’s Doctor Shortage. Here’s How. The World Economic
Forum. September 17. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/ai-can-solve-china-s-
doctor-shortage-here-s-how/#:~:text=China%20has%20only%201.8%20doctors%20per%20
1%2C000%20citizens.
Impact of Covid-19 on Children’s Education in Africa. August 26, 2020. https://www.hrw.org/
news/2020/08/26/impact-covid-19-childrens-education-africa.
Impact of COVID-19 on School Education in India: What are the
Budgetary Implications? 2020. https://www.cbgaindia.org/policy-brief/
impact-covid-19-school-education-india-budgetary-implications/.
Kavishwar,Ajay. 2018. Digital EducationAmong Students in RuralAreas. Forbes India.April 2. https://
www.forbesindia.com/blog/education/digital-education-among-students-in-rural-areas/.
Kemp, Simon. 2020. Digital 2020 Malawi. February 18. https://datareportal.com/reports/
digital-2020-malawi.
Kleinman, Zoe. 2020. What it Tencent? BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/
technology-53696743
Koninckx, Peter, Cunegonde Fatondji, and Joel Burgos. 2021. COVID-19 Impact on
Higher Education in Africa. May 19. https://oecd-development-matters.org/2021/05/19/
covid-19-impact-on-higher-education-in-africa/.
Kopparapu, Kavya, and Neevanth Kopparupu. 2020. What About AI and Health Excites You the
Most? Med.MD.com.
Lawrence, Stacy. 2016. GE Healthcare Hand-Held Ultrasound in Pilot NHS Test, $20M Nigerian
Health Initiative. Fierce Biotech, May 17.
Lung, Nicky. 2018. China launches national association to speed up integration of AI with health-
care. https://opengovasia.com/china-launches-national-association-tospeed-up-integration-of-
ai-with-healthcare/
Mafenya, P.N. 2014. Challenges Faced by Higher Education Institutions in Research Skills
Development: A South African Open and Distance Learning Case Study. Mediterranean
Journal of Social Sciences, 5(4), 436–442.
Makwero, Martha T. 2018. Delivery of Primary Health Care in Malawi. June 21. https://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6018651/.
Malthus, Thomas Robert. 1803. An Essay on the Principle of Population. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Marron, Orla, Gareth Thomas, Jordana L. Furdon, Dagmar Mayer Bailey, Paul O. Grossman,
Frederic Lohr, Andy D. Gibson, et al. 2020. Factors Associated with Mobile Phone Ownership
and Potential Use for Rabies Vaccination Campaigns in Southern Malawi. Infectious Diseases
of Poverty June.
McCarthy, John. 2004. What Is Artificial Intelligence? November 24. https://homes.di.unimi.it/
borghese/Teaching/AdvancedIntelligentSystems/Old/IntelligentSystems_2008_2009/Old/
IntelligentSystems_2005_2006/Documents/Symbolic/04_McCarthy_whatisai.pdf.
Ning, Annie, and Betsy Corcoran. 2020. How China’s Schools Are
Getting Through COVID-19. April 20. https://www.edsurge.com/
news/2020-04-20-how-china-s-schools-are-getting-through-covid-19.
Nursing and Midwifery. January 9, 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/
nursing-and-midwifery.
Olaronke, Iroju, and Ojerinde Oluwaseun. 2016. An Ontology Based Remote Patient Monitoring
Framework for Nigerian Healthcare System. International Journal of Modern Education and
Computer Science 8: 17–24.
Oyaro, Kwamboka. 2016–2017. Taking Health Services to Remote Areas. Africa Renewal,
December–March: 22–23.
Physicians (per 1000 people) – Nigeria. 2018. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.
PHYS.ZS?locations=NG.
Physicians (per 1000 People). 2020. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.PHYS.ZS?en
d=2018&start=1960&view=chart.
Principles and Practice in Measuring Global Poverty. January 13, 2016. https://www.worldbank.
org/en/news/feature/2016/01/13/principles-and-practice-in-measuring-global-poverty.
Rao, Pavithra, and Dona Joseph. 2016–2017. Portable Ultrasound Device to Tackle Child Mortality.
Africa Renewal, December–March: 38.
Ravallion, Martin. 2016. The Economics of Poverty: History, Measurement, and Policy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Rouhiainen, Lasse. 2019. How AI and Data Could Personalize Higher Education. October 14.
https://hbr.org/2019/10/how-ai-and-data-could-personalize-higher-education.
Rural Population – Nigeria. 2019. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.
TOTL?locations=NG.
Rural Population China. 2020. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.
ZS?locations=CN.
Rural Population Malawi. 2020. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS.
Tafesse, Wiktoria, and Martin Chalkley. 2021. Faith-Based Provision of Sexual and Reproductive
Healthcare in Malawi. Social Science & Medicine August.
Tafirenyika, Masimba. 2016–2017. It’s Time to Rethink Medical Insurance. Africa Renewal,
December–March: 6–7.
Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. October 21, 2015.
https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E.
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Report 2021. 2021. New York: United Nations.
Wee, Sui-Lee. 2018. China’s Health Care Crisis: Lines Before Dawn, Violence and ‘No Trust’.
September 30. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/03/business/china-health-care-doctors.html.
Weifeng, Li. 2019. The Future Has Come: AI in Education and Poverty Alleviation. China.org.cn.
January 5. http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2019-01/08/content_74352493.htm.
What Is Artificial Intelligence? n.d. https://aws.amazon.com/machine-learning/what-is-ai/.
Xue, Eryong, Jian Li, Tingzhou Li, and Weiwei Shang. 2021. China’s Education Response to
COVID-19: A Perspective of Policy Analysis. Educational Philosophy and Theory 53:
881–893.
Yang, Rui. 2020. China’s High Education During COVID-19 Pandemic: Some Preliminary
Observations. Higher Education Research Development 39: 1317–1321.
Yaya, Sanni, Ghose Bishwajit, and Vaibhav Shah. 2016. Wealth, Education and Urban-Rural
Inequality and Maternal Healthcare Service Usage in Malawi. BMJ Global Health, 1(2), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000085
Missing Circles: A Dignitarian Approach
to Doughnut Economics Through AI
Applications
Kostina Prifti
Abstract This contribution aims at providing a more concrete and accurate under-
standing of Doughnut economics, its model, and its ideas. In doing so, it provides a
comprehensive description of the Doughnut and its connection with the Sustainable
Development Goals. Then, it inquires into the philosophical background of
Doughnut economics, elucidating its existential rationale that relies on human dig-
nity. Further, examples of four AI applications are used to showcase how the
Doughnut model would address their use and challenges that arise thereof. From
this testing exercise transpires the understanding that another limitation is required
in the Doughnut model, pursuant to its philosophical background. Therefore,
besides economic activities that may breach the ecological ceiling or the social
foundation, activities that infringe human dignity, without breaching any of the
boundaries, are also incompatible with the Doughnut model. This complementing
proposal is conceptually represented within the model of Doughnut economics.
Keywords Sustainable development · Doughnut economics · Dignity · Ethics ·

Artificial intelligence
1 Introduction
The nineteenth century saw the emergence of sustainable development policy from
a union of economics with environmental sustainability. This led to slow but steady
initiatives that aimed at incorporating sustainable criteria to economic development
(Spindler 2013). Rooted in all cultures (Schreiber 2004), sustainable development
made its way to policy firstly through the German Forestry Industry (Schulze and
Schretzmann 2006, 68) and then through the United Nations’ (UN) Environmental
K. Prifti (*)
Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam; Jean Monet Centre of Excellence on
Digital Governance, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
116 K. Prifti
Policy, which has produced today’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A lake
in South America named Manchau gagog changau gagog chaugo gagog amaug,
which means “We fish on our side, you fish on your side and nobody fishes in the
middle”, perhaps succinctly evidences the old origins of sustainable development as
a concept.
Doughnut economics is a recent idea that aims at providing a model for sustain-
able development. The Doughnut model can be perceived as a conceptual represen-
tation of a seemingly straightforward idea: the outcome of our activities must be
subject to two constraints, ensuring a social foundation of human wellbeing and
protecting the ecological ceiling of planetary boundaries (Raworth 2017b). So long
as our activities do not fall short of the social foundation or over the ecological ceil-
ing, the model suggests that we are operating within the safe and just space for
humanity. These two constraints are drawn based on prior research and widely
accepted social objectives. The threshold of the social foundation is comprised of
minimum needs that any society must meet for all humans. The needs included in
the social foundation are visible in Fig. 1 and are drawn from the SDGs as devel-
oped in 2015 by the UN (UNDP 2022). The ecological ceiling is drawn based on the
research that identifies the – originally 9 (Rockström et al. 2009) and then 12
(Steffen et al. 2015) – planetary boundaries, the crossing of which is expected to
lead to irreparable damage on the planetary scale. As shown in Fig. 1, there are 12
planetary boundaries that jointly form the ecological ceiling.
The Doughnut Economics Action Lab (DEAL) is where the ideas and model of
the Doughnut are further explored and operationalised. Cities like Amsterdam have
taken proactive steps towards the application of Doughnut economics (Amsterdam
2022). However, despite the steps taken towards operationalisation and specifica-
tion of how the model would work in practice, the Doughnut and its ideas bear a
metaphysical nature, insofar as they are too broad and hermeneutic to qualify or (to
use a Popperian term) be demarcated as a scientific theory. The ideas behind
Doughnut economics are framed in opposition to the prevailing neoclassic account
of economics based on the homo economicus and mechanical equilibrium, offering
a claim to paradigm-shifting concepts like distributive-by-design and regenerative-
by-design. However, these ideas are not empirically analytical and often raise more
questions than they answer (Schokkaert 2019).
It is, therefore, necessary to further elucidate the meaning of Doughnut econom-
ics and its model, particularly its philosophical background. This elucidation is not
only useful in and of itself, but especially in order to enable further empirical analy-
sis and falsification. If one inquires into its philosophical background, Doughnut
economics refer to SDGs and human dignity as its existential and justificatory ratio-
nale. SDGs, in turn, also refer to human dignity as a basis for their development
(May and Daly 2020). However, the concept of human dignity takes different mean-
ings throughout the history of philosophy (Lebech 2009), so the reference to human
dignity by Doughnut economics and SDGs begs the question: what does human
dignity mean in this context? Hence, in order to elucidate the philosophical back-
ground of Doughnut economics and SDGs, it is necessary to elucidate and
Missing Circles: A Dignitarian Approach to Doughnut Economics Through AI… 117
Fig. 1 Doughnut economics illustration. (Raworth 2017b)
operationalise the meaning of human dignity for purposes useful to Doughnut eco-
nomics. This is one of the aims of this contribution.
Moreover, in line with the pragmatist maxim that concepts are properly under-
stood when tested (Peirce and Eisele 1985, 266), the model of Doughnut economics
is tested through four examples of AI applications: AI applications that may violate
the social foundation, AI applications that may violate the ecological ceiling, AI
applications that support one threshold but violate the other, and AI applications that
support both thresholds but may violate human dignity. Accordingly, the analysis
shows that a third constraint is required within the Doughnut model, pertaining
human dignity.
Section 2 describes Doughnut economics, its ideas, and its model in more detail,
explicating its connection with the SDGs. In Sect. 3 the chapter explores various
conceptualisations of human dignity throughout different philosophical eras, clari-
fying which “version” of human dignity fits the requirements of Doughnut
118 K. Prifti
economics and SDGs. Section 4 offers an analysis of the Doughnut model through
four examples of AI applications, whereas Sect. 5 concludes.
2 The Doughnut Model
If a society manages to not fall under the social foundation or over the ecological
boundaries, it is operating under a safe and just space for humanity – so does the
Doughnut profess. Figure 1, in the introductory section, gives a picture of the
Doughnut model. While a picture generally speaks for a thousand words, in this
case it speaks precisely of seven ways to think like a twenty-first-century economist.
In what follows, the ideas and the model of the Doughnut are presented descrip-
tively. Then, the relevance of the Doughnut model for the SDGs and their operation-
alisation is discussed. This section traces these seven ways as a structured method
to describe the Doughnut model and its ideas. The reader will notice that the essence
of each seven ways is a critique to neoclassic economics, which this section is bound
to follow descriptively.
(i) Instead of the GDP: The first shift in thinking like a twenty-first-century econ-
omist is to question the use of GDP as a measure of economic health. Instead,
progress ought to be measured by whether we are operating inside the
Doughnut, i.e., if the social foundation and the ecological boundaries are
respected. In this sense, the safe and just space of humanity, the space between
the two concentric circles, is the measure of success for the economy.
(ii) Instead of (only) the market: Economics is typically concerned with the role
of the market and its close allies: business, finance, and trade. However, the
Doughnut suggests that there are other relevant, often neglected, actors, such
as the state, the household, society, the commons, the environment, etc. The
example of a mother caring for a child, a type of caring work that is unac-
counted for by the market, shows that not all economic relations are handled
within the market. That is why the Doughnut calls for the inclusion of other
actors and for an “embedded economy”.
(iii) Instead of the homo economicus: The economic man, having complete ratio-
nality, perfect information, fixed preferences, and being guided by narrow
self-interest, is the abstracted image of humanity that guides today’s prevail-
ing economic models. However, many limitations and critiques exist for this
abstracted image, especially in the field of behavioural economics (Simon
1986). The Doughnut suggests that homo economicus must reflect the nature
of humans, which is social, interdependent (Veblen 1898), approximating,
fluid in values, and dependent upon the living world (Gigerenzer 2010).
(iv) Instead of economy-as-machine: Most of the economic models used today are
based on a mechanical equilibrium, the most prominent example of which is
the supply and demand diagram. The mechanical equilibrium is a simplifica-
tion of the many variables that exist in reality. Simplification is necessary, lest
one be disabled from making any predictions. On the other hand, if one sim-
plifies “too much”, thus removing uncertainties, one risks having erroneous
predictions. This worry is not novel in the Doughnut; in fact it is explicated by
many economists. The Doughnut suggests that the insufficiency, or inade-
quacy, of using models based on mechanical equilibriums ought to be replaced,
through a shift in thinking, by focusing on systems and their complex dynam-
ics. Thinking in reinforcing and balancing feedback loops, the Doughnut calls
for an “economy-as-organism”, instead of an “economy-as-machine”.
(v) Instead of poverty-as-feature: Pareto’s claim that redistribution is counterpro-
ductive and that the worse off can be helped only by expanding the economy,
along with Kuznets’ U-shaped curve, which claims that rising inequality is
inevitable for economic success, have been the guiding principles of econom-
ics, especially for development economists. The Doughnut firstly highlights
that these claims are refuted by economic analysis, which have shown that
inequality undercuts, rather than boosts, GDP growth (International Monetary
Fund 2014). Further, the Doughnut suggests that instead of expecting eco-
nomic growth to reduce inequality, we ought to create an economy that is
distributive by design, structuring the economy as a distributed network.
(vi) Instead of growth-as-cleaner: An inverted U-shaped curve between pollution
and GDP represents the discovered pattern that in the beginning pollution
rises, then falls, while GDP increases. This pattern formulates the hypothesis
that growth will clean after itself (Grossman and Krueger 1995). This hypoth-
esis, supported by data on water and air pollution but not on biodiversity and
wider ecological impact, has opened the way for macroeconomic models that
are typically degenerative (the produced material becomes waste after con-
sumption). The Doughnut counters this approach by promoting a paradigmatic
shift towards an economy of regenerative design. To describe in a few words,
an economy based on regenerative design is cyclical, minimising lost matter
and heat, and focusing on renewable materials.
(vii) Instead of the addiction to growth: In order to fulfil human needs and end
deprivation, poverty, and hunger, the economy must grow. This is important in
order to realise that the Doughnut does not object to growth and its benefits.
On the other hand, it highlights that growth alone cannot solve our problems,
especially those ecological ones. Growth is neither intrinsically good nor
intrinsically bad – that is why we ought to be agnostic about it. By agnostic,
the Doughnut means an economy that measures its success based on human
prosperity, regardless of whether GDP is increasing.
Operating within the Doughnut requires a conceptual shift, in accordance with these
seven ways. The reasoning and justification behind these ideas is sound; however,
many times they raise more questions than they answer. For instance, how does one
measure human prosperity (Schokkaert 2019)? Many of the concepts comprising
Doughnut economics, like embedded economy, regenerative design, distributed net-
works, and economy-as-organism, bear a metaphysical nature because they are too
120 K. Prifti
broad, sometimes undefined, and (only) hermeneutically refutable. This is a funda-

mental shortcoming that Doughnut economics must overcome.
It is relevant, in such regard, to understand if the connection between Doughnut
economics and SDGs yields any fruits for Doughnut economics. This relationship
is comprised of at least two dimensions. Firstly, the social foundation of the
Doughnut, which includes the human needs (food, health, education, income and
work, water and sanitation, energy, network, housing, gender equality, social equity,
political voice, and peace and justice), is drafted based on the work of the United
Nations with the SDGs, as Raworth (2017a) also stresses. In fact, SDGs 1–10 and
16 correspond to the elements of the social foundation that the Doughnut promotes.
Besides the SDGs that fit within the social foundation, SDGs 11–15 fit with the
ecological ceiling of planetary boundaries, whereas SDG 17, partnerships for the
goals, can be placed as an intrinsic part of the Doughnut itself. Secondly, the
Doughnut can be perceived as a conceptual representation of the aims behind the
SDGs, balancing social, economic, and environmental sustainability. In summation,
the connection between Doughnut economics and SDGs is strong, comprised of the
fact that SDGs fill the semantics of some concepts within the Doughnut and of the
fact that the Doughnut offers a conceptual frame and claim to operationalisation for
the SDGs. However, we know that SDGs, too, face conceptual and structural chal-
lenges (May and Daly 2020), similar to those of the Doughnut. Such an understand-
ing leads to two conclusions. Firstly, SDGs do not serve any elucidating role for the
shortcomings of Doughnut economics. Secondly, the conceptual elucidation, which
this chapter aims to perform for Doughnut economics, serves also to clarify the
philosophical background of SDGs, since they also rely on human dignity for their
existential rationale.
So far, this section describes the ideas behind the Doughnut, tracing the required
conceptual shift that a twenty-first-century economist should adopt. These ideas are
presented as a critique to some elements of neoclassic economics, although they are
shown to bear a metaphysical nature. Lastly, the connection between the Doughnut
and the SDGs is accounted for. The next section questions the philosophical ratio-
nale of the Doughnut, in an attempt to offer a scientific explanation for its existential
rationale.
3 Dignity, But Which One
The aim of this section is to understand the philosophical background of Doughnut

economics. The theory behind the Doughnut often refers to human dignity as its
existential rationale, but this reference begs the question: what does human dignity
mean? This section shows that there are a few answers to this question, but only one
satisfies the conditions and ideas of the Doughnut model. That is the patient-
oriented, ontocentric conceptualisation of human dignity that information eth-
ics offers.
3.1 Traditional Conceptualisations of Human Dignity
The semantics of human dignity have been subject to change, pursuant to various
historical and philosophical eras. We have had different ideas about our value as
human beings (Lebech 2009). In antiquity, the concept of human dignity was used
to explain the superiority of humans in comparison to the animal world, based on
human abilities. Humans have dignity because, unlike animals, they have the ability
to be virtuous (Crisp 2014, 23–37), or because, unlike animals and like gods, they
have the ability to reason and manage their impulses (Cicero and Laser 2014). Being
justified by a superiority of some sort, virtue or reason, dignity was not intrinsic to
all humans equally, but only to those deserving it. Aristotle did not consider all
humans to have dignity (e.g. slaves and women) and Cicero believed that some
ranking of dignity and respect should exist, where the more superior ones have also
“more dignity” (Cicero and Laser 2014).
Another influential approach that justifies and fills the semantics of human dig-
nity is the religious one. Typically for monotheistic religions, humans have dignity
because they are created by God. The religious account seemingly opposes the pre-
vious version of antiquity in terms of differences between humans because, since
we are all created by God, humans are equal and deserve the same amount of dig-
nity, provided they are theists. However, it still relies on a superiority claim, effec-
tively because humans are the vicegerent of God on earth. This is evident in Islamic
teaching (Quran; Mozaffari 2011) and in Christian theology (Aquinas 1486).
In the Enlightenment Age, the basis for human dignity was reason. Some schol-
ars refer to this as the logo-centric approach (Lebech 2004), precisely for the impor-
tance of human rationality as a justification for the intrinsic value of humans. The
focus on rationality is characteristic of the Enlightenment Age and it resonates with
Kantian philosophy and deontology ethics, despite Kant’s valuable critique on the
limits of human reasoning. Kant is often cited claiming that humanity itself is dig-
nity (Kant and Klenner 1988, 38; Lebech 2004), which he bases on the justification
that the ability of humans to reason and self-legislate moral laws through their
autonomy is what dignifies the nature of being human. In this sense, human dignity
is based on autonomy, which in turn is based on rationality. As such, the superiority
claim persists, since dignity is perceived as logically subsequent to rationality, an
ability that distinguishes humans from other beings.
The modern conceptualisation of human dignity that was developed in the
Enlightenment Age was challenged in post-modern philosophy, according to which
human dignity served an enabling purpose for a democratic society (Lebech 2009).
As such, human dignity adopts a relational, or functional, nature. Based on dialecti-
cal reasoning and opposing the objectively true point of view, post-modernism val-
ues human dignity as a function of social relations, which in turn enable the
functioning of a democratic society (Lebech 2009). It must be noted that the differ-
ence between modernism and post-modernism in conceptualising human dignity is
highly disputed (Habermas and Ben-Habib 1981) since the post-modernist account
is based also on rationality, albeit focused on dialectic reason.
122 K. Prifti
These accounts of the semantics of human dignity can be understood as the tra-
ditional approaches. They have their differences, but they agree with each other in
that humans have dignity because they are superior in a certain way – compared to
animals, birds, rivers, and robots. There is a shift in philosophical and ethical think-
ing that challenges the traditional conceptualisation and which has an impact in how
we understand human dignity. This is explained in the next sub-section.
3.2 A Shift in Ethics: From Agents to Patients
The traditional conceptualisations of human dignity rely on a kind of human special

ability, either due to virtue, likeness to God, or reason. Traces of this understanding
can be found in so-called traditional macro ethics, such as virtue ethics, deontology,
and consequentialism. Essentially, if one questions the morality of an action accord-
ing to these ethical frameworks, one must ask if the agent took the morally right
action. That means traditional macro ethics have an agent-oriented approach, which
fits with the virtuous, rational, God-like conceptualisations of the human agent.
This approach is challenged by (relatively) recent developments in ethics.
Bioethics (Beauchamp and Childress 2019), feminist, and care ethics (Tronto 1993),
among others, have shifted the focus of ethical judgement from the agent to the
patient – the receiver of the action. In essence, instead of asking what the morally
right thing that the agent should do is, these patient-oriented approaches to ethics
ask what the morally right action is, for the patient to receive. While the actions of
the agent are still relevant, the focus is on the wellbeing of the patient. Therefore,
these approaches challenge the superiority claim based on special abilities, found in
traditional macro ethics, since, here, humans are perceived in need of care, rather
than armoured with some divine or natural ability that justifies their dignity – fragile
as a plant, not precious as a jewel, as Nussbaum (2001) would say. Notwithstanding
the change of focus from agent to patient, the shift towards an anthropo-eccentric
conceptualisation of human dignity is not yet complete, since even in bioethics,
feminist ethics, and care ethics, humans as living things are still in the centre of the
ethical universe.
Information ethics (Floridi 2013) joins these patient-oriented approaches, offer-
ing some novelties. Aligned with bioethics, feminist ethics, and care ethics, the
orientation of information ethics is not focused on the agent, but on the patient.
However, information ethics further challenges the biocentrism of morality with an
ontocentric version. The infosphere, comprised of resources, targets, and products
of information, is ontologically informational, making information the centre of
moral claims. As a result, any informational entity (e.g., a tree) has a moral claim to
fulfil the purpose of its existence, albeit overridable. In this ontocentric account,
humans are but one of the informational entities and agents that impact the infos-
phere. Dignity is thus perceived similarly as for other informational entities: a pre-
requisite that enables humans as informational entities to flourish, to improve and
enrich their existence. Along with humans, also rivers, trees, animals, birds, and
robots have a claim to fulfil the purpose of their existence and have, as such, dignity
(again, overridable). This new account presented by information ethics offers a truly
patient-oriented and anthropo-eccentric approach to ethics and dignity (Floridi
2013). The next part explains why this is the conceptualisation of human dignity
that fits with the ideas behind the Doughnut.
3.3 The Doughnut’s Allegiance
The Doughnut’s ideas cannot be based on traditional macro ethics because the
humans of the Doughnut model are not perceived as having special abilities that
make them worthy of having dignity. They are not presented as virtuous, God-like,
rational, or in any way supreme. They are instead presented as agents that must have
their needs fulfilled and for whom the economy must care. This perception of
humanity draws the Doughnut away from traditional conceptualisations of the vir-
tuous, God-like, or rational human agent, who has dignity because she is special,
due to her abilities. As a result, the Doughnut is aligned with a patient-oriented
approach in ethics. In Raworth (2017b, 61) there are four ethical principles that a
twenty-first-century economist must consider: (i) act in service to human prosperity,
(ii) respect autonomy, (iii) be prudential in policymaking in order to minimise harm,
and (iv) work with humility. These principles resemble the four well-known prin-
ciples of bioethics, respectively, beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and jus-
tice (Beauchamp and Childress 2019). In fact, the first three principles are almost
identical; hence, they are substantially patient-oriented approaches. The fourth prin-
ciple, working with humility, comes closer to an agent-oriented approach, aligned
with virtue ethics or deontology ethics. Nonetheless, the agent is portrayed as frag-
ile, not as virtuous or rational, since working with humility relies on accepting and
explicating our limitations as humans.
This analysis brings the ethical background of the Doughnut closer to the patient-
oriented approaches of bioethics and feminist care ethics. There is, however, a sub-
stantial misalignment in the fact that neither of these ethical frameworks is able to
place the environment as a patient, because they are morally anthropocentric or
biocentric, despite being patient-oriented. In simpler words, the receiver of the
moral action, the patient, is always “a living thing” according to bioethics, feminist
ethics, and care ethics.
Information ethics, as a kind of environmental ethics, offers an ethical shelter for
Doughnut economics, considering the above. Since information ethics perceives a
universe (infosphere) that is ontologically informational, the receiver of the moral
action is information itself. As a result, all informational entities, humans, trees, riv-
ers, and robots are included as potential patients. Such a conceptualisation enables
the ethical claims, which the Doughnut advances through economic concepts, that
aim at protecting both humans and the environment.
Clarifying the philosophical and ethical background of the Doughnut addresses
the metaphysical nature of the ideas behind Doughnut economics, making the
124 K. Prifti
concept more accurate and facilitating its analysis and operationalisation. The fol-
lowing section offers an analytical perspective to the model offered by Doughnut
economics, through the use of examples of AI applications.
4 The AI and the Doughnut
The purpose of this section is to understand, by way of examples, how the Doughnut,
its ideas, concepts, and model would approach and deal with particular activities.
Examples of AI are used because of their relevance and threat to both foundations
of the Doughnut model. So far, a methodological challenge arises, particularly due
to the fact that the Doughnut does not offer concrete models that can be empirically
tested, but rather suggests a few ways that facilitate a paradigmatic conceptual shift
in thinking about economics. The metaphysical nature of the Doughnut constitutes
intrinsic conditions in the type of analysis one can use to test it. Hence, this section
is based on hermeneutical analysis. However, the purpose of the previous section
was to construct a more accurate and testable conceptualisation of the ideas behind
the Doughnut, which in turn offers this analysis a claim to accuracy. A second meth-
odological challenge relates to the fact that the Doughnut, as it is constructed and
presented, is not meant to be used for determining the validity of individual eco-
nomic activities, but rather of the economy itself. Any attempts to determine how
individual economic activities would interact with the Doughnut are bound to an
interpretative approach.
4.1 Threatening the Boundaries
The essence of the Doughnut is the two concentric rings, which represent two
boundaries: the social foundation and ecological ceiling. Therefore, an activity that
threatens even one of the elements that comprise these boundaries is deemed unethi-
cal, according to the Doughnut. Let us take two examples to showcase this
understanding.
One fundamental normative problem of AI derives from the bias inherent in the
dataset with which the algorithm is trained to learn (Morley et al. 2020). This prob-
lem may be represented through the example of AI applications that predict the
length of stay for each patient in the hospital. Aiming for efficiency as a goal, hos-
pitals would benefit from knowing which patients are likely to have a shorter stay,
thereby prioritising their care in order to free hospital spaces for new patients (Abd-
Elrazek et al. 2021). In order to learn and make such predictions, the AI application
is given medical data of a large number of patients. Through supervised learning
techniques, the AI would trace the length of stay of patients with other correlated
data in their files and therefore “learn” that, for instance, people aged 18–24 have
shorter lengths of stay for acute diseases (Abd-Elrazek et al. 2021). In this case,
length of stay is correlated with age. However, data may show various correlations,
some of which manifest their inherent discriminatory bias. When such AI applica-
tions were experimented in the University of Chicago academic hospital system, the
AI application “learned” from the dataset that people from certain postal codes were
likely to have shorter stays (Nordling 2019). Those postal codes transpired to belong
to areas populated primarily by white upper-class people. The implication of this
bias for healthcare is that people would get prioritised care depending on where they
live or to which racial or ethnic group they belong (Garattini et al. 2017). Such a
result, from the use of AI applications aimed at efficiency, would threaten the social
foundation boundary, since it conflicts with at least one of the elements that com-
prise it, namely, ensuring healthy lives and wellbeing for all. It is important to point
out that this conclusion does not imply that the AI application is incompatible in and
of itself; efficiency is a worthy pursuit, just like bias in data can be useful (Gigerenzer
and Brighton 2009). However, this AI application, operating based on this bias,
would be incompatible with the Doughnut.
With regard to the ecological ceiling, machine-learning AI applications may
pose a serious threat. The computing power required by machine learning has
increased 300,000-fold from 2012 to 2018. Seemingly simple AI applications may
consume approximately 3 gigawatt-hours of electricity for their learning process,
the same amount of energy needed to fuel three nuclear power plants for 1 h (Knight
2021). For this example, the case of Bitcoin, a digital currency, proves useful.
Bitcoin is the world’s largest cryptocurrency, utilising a proof of work (PoW) algo-
rithm and relying on blockchain as a database technology. Digital and decentralised,
Bitcoin is used primarily for its novelty of providing transparency and trust among
its users, due to its verifiable system. However, it is this capability that makes
Bitcoin consume 0.55% of the electricity of the planet, matching the electrical con-
sumption of Poland, the carbon footprint of Oman, and electronic waste of the
Netherlands (Digiconomist 2022). Moreover, the energy consumed comes primar-
ily from non-renewable and polluting resources, such as fossil fuels. Therefore, the
operations of Bitcoin pose a threat to the ecological ceiling that the Doughnut aims
to protect. Such an understanding does not imply that technologies like Bitcoin
would be banned under the model of the Doughnut, but that, considering the threat
towards the ecological ceiling, it would be necessary to address the unsustainability
of the system.
Moreover, some type of economic activities may support one boundary but
threaten the other. Such is the case of smart grids – an AI technology that offers a
promise towards protecting the ecological boundary but presents a threat to the
social foundation. Smart grids are an AI solution that aims at efficiency, particularly
of the energy and water grids. Their main capability is to integrate the behaviour and
actions of all the users connected to it, through data-driven and other grid-related
technical solutions. The smart grid’s promise to make the grid more efficient is
based on lower consumption of energy; their capability to integrate users with new
requirements offers the possibility to include distributed energy sources, like renew-
able energy sources, as well as provide stronger control over these sources.
Moreover, by involving consumers in the energy market and improving the market
126 K. Prifti
functioning in general, they offer incentives for consumers to produce and trade
energy from renewable sources (European Commission 2011). As such, smart grids
offer a substantial promise to the protection of the ecological ceiling. Less con-
sumption, higher use of renewable resources, and less wasted energy contribute to
the preservation of the planetary boundaries, especially combatting climate change.
However, reports and studies have raised concerns over the impact that the
implementation of smart grids would have on vulnerable consumers (Sovacool et al.
2019). Vulnerable consumers may have more difficulty becoming price-sensitive or
engaging with the market, either because they may not possess the knowledge or the
time or because of the stress and anxiety created by the quantity of information that
smart grid technologies generate. Another concern for vulnerable consumers is the
necessity to update their electrical appliances so they can be integrated within the
smart grid. While the EU and member states are expected to bear the costs for the
implementation of smart grids, consumers must bear their own costs to update their
electrical appliances in order to support smart grids (Milchram et al. 2018). A
heavier burden is therefore placed on vulnerable consumers, triggering a threat to
the social foundation and the fulfilment of human needs thereof. As a result, smart
grids pose a question to the Doughnut, insofar as they offer a promise to protect the
ecological ceiling and a threat to breach the social foundation. The Doughnut would
have to provide an answer. The safe and just space for humanity is comprised of
economic activities that simultaneously do not threaten the social foundation or the
ecological ceiling. In other words, economic activities that threaten one of the foun-
dations would already step outside this safe and just space. It follows that, according
to the Doughnut, smart grid technologies may be implemented in support of the
ecological ceiling only if they do not infringe the social foundation. So far, the
Doughnut would, for instance, impose that measures must be put in place to ensure
that vulnerable consumers do not share a heavier burden as a result of the imple-
mentation of the technology.
4.2 The Missing Circles
Having explored how three AI applications would interact with the Doughnut, this
part focuses on a fourth and final example: social credit systems (SCSs). SCSs are
AI applications that rely on big data, used to rate citizen trustworthiness, among
other objectives. The predecessors of SCSs are credit scoring, used geographically
widely but limited only to financial use and regulated by law. An SCS goes beyond
financial matters and offers the possibility to rate social aspects of business entities
and individuals. A concrete case of SCSs can be traced to the People’s Republic of
China (State Council 2014), where a planning outline aims at assessing the trust-
worthiness of individuals with respect to legal, social, and ethical standards (Chen
and Cheung 2017). Summarised in a few words, the SCS would collect data about
how individuals act and rate their behaviour according to the desired standard.
Rewards for complying with the standard might involve fast-track promotions,
whereas individuals that fall under the designated standard may be denied certain
perks or even rights. Fuelled by big data, SCSs may become an efficient tool for
extended control from the government to its citizens. Big data sources may be
administrative, transactional, sensor, tracking, behavioural, and opinion data (Chen
and Cheung 2017). In the draft regulation published in April 2021, the European
Commission proposes an outright ban to SCSs in the European Union, which indi-
cates the potential for harm that this technology bears.
How does the SCS fare within the Doughnut? The first test is to understand if the
SCS would breach either of the boundaries that comprise the Doughnut. If we firstly
consider the ecological ceiling, comprised of 12 planetary boundaries, the SCS
presents an opportunity to safeguard the ceiling if such objectives are included in
the rating criteria of the system. For instance, citizens may be rated depending on
how well they care for the environment, how much waste they recycle, or how much
plastic they use. Businesses may be rated depending on how much carbon dioxide
they emit, or if they use regenerative practices. As such, the SCS would be operating
safely without breaching, and perhaps also supporting, the ecological ceiling.
If we consider the social foundation, the SCS presents another opportunity to
advance the social goals thereof. The rating of the SCS may depend on how well
individuals respect gender equality in their life (SDG 5) or if they share resources,
like food or energy, with the poor (SDGs 1 and 2). The SCS rating might depend on
how good the individual is behaving as a landlord (SDG 11), how they address edu-
cation in their family and community (SDG 4), and so on. The goals for peace and
justice promote strong institutions and combatting corruption (SDG 11), goals that
may be supported, perhaps even promoted, by SCSs. By complying with the two
limitations of the Doughnut, SCSs would thus be operating under the safe and just
space for humanity. At the same time, the SCS may function so that neither of the
other elements of the social foundation are breached. Clearly, certain uses of SCSs
may breach these standards, for example, if a low rating means losing access to
healthcare or being denied a job. However, an SCS can also operate without denying
basic rights to citizens, specifically those laid down in the social foundation. As a
result, it seems the SCS would not breach, and perhaps also support, the social foun-
dation along with the ecological ceiling. This understanding implies that the opera-
tion of an SCS would fall within the safe and just space of the Doughnut.
However, this conclusion is not supported by the philosophical background of
the Doughnut. The SCS operates on the ability to collect and aggregate personal
information of individuals, which is then used to rate their social credit score. These
sources do not include only publicly known personal information, but also private
personal information, like shopping activity and daily habits. As a result, individu-
als would have the impression that they are always under the surveillance of Lacan’s
Big Other, the Orwellian Big Brother, or Bentham’s Panopticon applied in large
scale. Such a feeling or impression has considerable effects on the individual’s right
to form their own personality (van der Sloot 2015) and pursue their right to flourish
and fulfil the purpose of their existence (Floridi 2013), since the individual is con-
ditioned by externally mandated interferences. As a result, such a use of SCSs
would be unethical and would breach the concept of human dignity that ethics of
128 K. Prifti
information advances and upon which the ideas of the Doughnut rely. Therefore, the
conceptual model of the Doughnut offers a considerable shortcoming.
As this example shows, there can be economic activities that abide by both
boundaries that form the Doughnut, yet still violate human dignity. This shortcom-
ing relates to a broader discussion on the positive and negative dimension of protect-
ing human dignity (Whitman 2004). The continental European tradition, unlike that
of common law, influenced by German and French legal traditions, adopts a consti-
tutional perspective of human dignity being comprised of both positive and negative
liberties. A positive liberty is the right to have a need fulfilled, e.g. the right to edu-
cation, the right to food, the right to energy, and more. The social foundation of the
Doughnut is comprised of such positive liberties, conceptualised as needs that all
humans must be afforded. However, there is another dimension of human dignity,
that of being free from external obstacles (Berlin 1969). A prominent case of nega-
tive liberty is the right to privacy, conceptualised as the right to form one’s own
personality (van der Sloot 2015), free from external obstacles.
The importance of this dimension is clear, yet missing from the conceptual model
of the Doughnut. It would be necessary, pursuant to the Doughnut’s own philo-
sophical background, to remedy this shortcoming. One option would be to modify
the elements of the social foundation, by including negative liberties. However, pre-
serving the positive nature of the elements comprising the social foundation, another
alternative would be to introduce this addition within the safe and just space for
humanity. Accordingly, the safe and just space for humanity would slightly shrink
from the original conceptualisation, so besides economic activities not shooting
above the ecological ceiling or below the social foundation, safe and just economic
activities must also steer away from some new small circles within the safe and just
space. The result would be a complete conceptualisation of how our economic
activities protect human dignity, and a completed dignitarian approach to Doughnut
economics.
5 Conclusions
This contribution aims at providing a more concrete and accurate understanding of

Doughnut economics and its model and ideas. In doing so, it provides a comprehen-
sive description of the Doughnut and its connection with the SDGs. Then, it inquires
into the philosophical background of Doughnut economics, questioning its existen-
tial rationale that relies on human dignity. Further, abiding by the principle that a
concept is understood properly only when tested, examples of four AI applications
are used to showcase how the Doughnut model would address their use and
challenges.
Doughnut economics is conceptually represented by two concentric circles, each
standing as the boundary for the social foundation and the ecological ceiling; the
space between the circles is the safe and just space for humanity, according to the
Doughnut. Living in this space implies a paradigmatic shift in thinking like a
twenty-first-century economist, including shifting from mechanical equilibrium to

systems thinking and being agnostic about growth by not using GDP as a measure
of economic success. The chapter showed that the Doughnut relates to SDGs in two
ways. Firstly, the SDGs fill the semantics of the concepts comprising Doughnut
economics; secondly, Doughnut economics offers a conceptual frame and claim to
operationalisation of SDGs.
The Doughnut claims that the fundamental reason for its existence is dignity,
which the chapter questions in relation to the various conceptualisations of dignity.
Tracing the semantic evolution of this concept since antiquity, the chapter shows
that the Doughnut fits with the concept of dignity advanced by information ethics,
which is the anthropo-eccentric, patient-oriented, and ontocentric concept that per-
ceives dignity as a prerequisite for flourishing and enriching the existence of any
informational entity.
Equipped with this new conceptual frame, the Doughnut model and its ideas are
tested through four examples of AI applications: healthcare AI operating on unfair
bias as a threat to the social foundation, Bitcoin energy expenditure threatening the
ecological ceiling, smart grids offering to aid the protection of the ecological ceiling
but threatening the social foundation, and SCSs which may abide by both boundar-
ies yet threaten to infringe the concept of dignity as described above. From this
testing exercise transpires the understanding that another limitation is required in
the Doughnut model, pursuant to its philosophical background. Hence, besides eco-
nomic activities that may breach the ecological ceiling or the social foundation,
activities that infringe human dignity should be incompatible with the Doughnut
model. Pursuant to the playfully serious nature of the Doughnut, these limitations
may be perceived as chocolate chip additions to a more nuanced Doughnut model.
References
Abd-Elrazek, Merhan A., Ahmed A. Eltahawi, Mohamed H. Abd Elaziz, and Mohamed N. Abd-
Elwhab. 2021. Predicting Length of Stay in Hospitals Intensive Care Unit Using General
Admission Features. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 12 (4): 3691–3702. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.asej.2021.02.018.
Amsterdam, Gemeente. 2022. Policy: Circular Economy. English Site. https://www.amsterdam.nl/
en/policy/sustainability/circular-economy/. Accessed 31 Jan 2022.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1486. Summa Theologica. Venice: Bernardinus Stagninus, de Tridino.
Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. 2019. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Berlin, Isaiah. 1969. Four Essays on Liberty. London: Oxford University Press.
Chen, Yongxi, and Anne S.Y. Cheung. 2017. The Transparent Self Under Big Data Profiling:
Privacy and Chinese Legislation on the Social Credit System. Journal of Comparative Law
12: 356.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius, and Günter Laser. 2014. De Re Publica. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Crisp, Roger. 2014. Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Digiconomist. 2022. Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index. Digiconomist. https://digiconomist.net/
bitcoin-energy-consumption/. Accessed 31 Jan 2022.
130 K. Prifti
European Commission. 2011. Smart Grids: From Innovation to Deployment COM 202. EURlex.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0202:FIN:EN:PDF.
Floridi, Luciano. 2013. The Ethics of Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garattini, Chiara, Jade Raffle, Dewi N. Aisyah, Felicity Sartain, and Zisis Kozlakidis. 2017. Big
Data Analytics, Infectious Diseases and Associated Ethical Impacts. Philosophy & Technology
32 (1): 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0278-y.
Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2010. Moral Satisficing: Rethinking Moral Behavior as Bounded Rationality.
Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (3): 528–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01094.x.
Gigerenzer, Gerd, and Henry Brighton. 2009. Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better
Inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science 1 (1): 107–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765
.2008.01006.x.
Grossman, Gene M., and Alan B. Krueger. 1995. Economic Growth and the Environment. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 110 (2): 353–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443.
Habermas, Jurgen, and Seyla Ben-Habib. 1981. Modernity Versus Postmodernity. New German
Critique 22: 3. https://doi.org/10.2307/487859.
International Monetary Fund. 2014. Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth. International
Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf.
Kant, Immanuel, and Hermann Klenner. 1988. Immanuel Kant Rechtslehre Schriften Zur
Rechtsphilosophie. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Knight, Will. 2021. AI Can Do Great Things—If It Doesn’t Burn the Planet. Wired, January 21.
Lebech, Mette. 2004. What Is Human Dignity? Maynooth Philosophical Papers 2: 59–69. https://
doi.org/10.5840/mpp200428.
———. 2009. On the Problem of Human Dignity. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann Studien.
May, James R., and Erin Daly. 2020. The Role of Human Dignity in Achieving the UN Sustainable
Development Goals. Global Environmental Law Annual 2021: 59–76.
Milchram, Christine, Rafaela Hillerbrand, Geerten van de Kaa, Neelke Doorn, and Rolf Künneke.
2018. Energy Justice and Smart Grid Systems: Evidence from the Netherlands and the United
Kingdom. Applied Energy 229: 1244–1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.08.053.
Morley, Jessica, Caio C.V. Machado, Christopher Burr, Josh Cowls, Indra Joshi, Mariarosaria
Taddeo, and Luciano Floridi. 2020. The Ethics of AI in Health Care: A Mapping Review. Social
Science & Medicine 260: 113172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113172.
Mozaffari, Mohammad Hossein. 2011. Human Dignity: An Islamic Perspective. An International
Journal of Academic Research 54 (4): 2–15.
Nordling, Linda. 2019. A Fairer Way Forward for AI in Health Care. Nature 573–7775: S103–S103.
Nussbaum, Martha C. 2001. The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and
Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peirce, Charles S., and Carolyn Eisele. 1985. Historical Perspectives on Peirce’s Logic of Science.
Berlin: Mouton Publishers.
Quran. Al Isra: 70.
Raworth, Kate. 2017a. A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: Humanity’s Compass in the 21st Century.
The Lancet Planetary Health 1 (2): e48–e49. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(17)30028-1.
———. 2017b. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. White
River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Rockström, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Persson Åsa, F. Stuart Chapin III, Eric Lambin,
Timothy M. Lenton, et al. 2009. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for
Humanity. Ecology and Society 14 (2). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-03180-140232.
Schokkaert, Erik. 2019. Review of Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics. London: Random
House, 2017, 373 p. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics 12(1): 125–132. https://
doi.org/10.23941/ejpe.v12i1.412.
Schreiber, Rudolf. 2004. Neue Wege Im Naturschutz. Blog. ASK. https://www.ask-eu.de/
News/6787/Neue-Wege-im-Naturschutz.htm.
Schulze, Karsten, and Rainer Schretzmann. 2006. Wald mit Zukunft: nachhaltige Forstwirtschaft in
Deutschland. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. https://www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/
item/AQPG5LIPG2LBMNZNS5FNZ5PG2ZL5MTEA. Accessed 31 Jan 2022.
Simon, Herbert A. 1986. Rationality in Psychology and Economics. The Journal of Business 59
(S4): S209. https://doi.org/10.1086/296363.
Sovacool, Benjamin K., Mari Martiskainen, Andrew Hook, and Lucy Baker. 2019. Decarbonization
and Its Discontents: A Critical Energy Justice Perspective on Four Low-Carbon Transitions.
Climatic Change 155 (4): 581–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02521-7.
Spindler, Edmund A. 2013. The History of Sustainability the Origins and Effects of a Popular
Concept. In Sustainability in Tourism, ed. Jenkins I. Schröder, 9–31. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.
State Council. 2014. Shehui Xinyong Tixi Jianshe Guihua Gangyao. People’s Republic of China.
Steffen, Will, Katherine Richardson, Johan Rockström, Sarah E. Cornell, Ingo Fetzer, Elena
M. Bennett, Reinette Biggs, et al. 2015. Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development
on a Changing Planet. Science 347 (6223). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855.
Tronto, Joan. 1993. Moral Boundaries. New York: Routledge.
UNDP. 2022. Sustainable Development Goals | United Nations Development Programme. https://
www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals.
van der Sloot, Bart. 2015. Privacy as Personality Right: Why the ECtHR’s Focus on Ulterior
Interests Might Prove Indispensable in the Age of “Big Data”. Utrecht Journal of International
and European Law 31 (80): 25–50. https://doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.cp.
Veblen, Thorstein. 1898. Why Is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science? The Quarterly Journal
of Economics 12 (4): 373. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882952.
Whitman, James Q. 2004. The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty. The Yale
Law Journal 113 (6): 1151. https://doi.org/10.2307/4135723.
The Role of AI in SDG: An African
Perspective
Steve A. Adeshina and Oluwatomisin Aina
Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized different sectors and will
not be an exception in enabling the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The
focus of SDGs is to provide a “blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable
future for all by 2030”. The 17 SDGs are interconnected and achieving one of the
goals creates a ripple effect in the other goals. These ripple effects can be created
when stakeholders use past information (data) from the societal, environmental, and
economic factors, observing patterns and proffering actionable solutions. AI is a key
driver that can leverage this data to create revolutionary approaches in solving
global problems. For example, women have developed AI-based systems to ensure
healthy lives and promote well-being. These systems that can detect breast and cer-
vical cancer have been developed by researchers. From an African standpoint, a
significant area where the role of AI will have an immense contribution is in consti-
tuting institutions. These institutions will uphold peace and justice and promote the
rule of law at all national levels by building solid institutions using data. AI can
leverage blockchain and distributed ledgers to support voting and boost voters’
integrity. These, among other projects where AI systems have been deployed and
can be potentially integrated, will be further discussed in this chapter.
Keywords Africa · Artificial intelligence · Good health · Peace and justice · SDG
1 Introduction
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) developed by the United Nations (UN)
in 2015 were introduced to enable countries achieve a better and more sustainable
future for all by 2030. The SDGs, a sequel to the Millennium Development Goals
S. A. Adeshina (*) · O. Aina

Nile University of Nigeria, Abuja, Nigeria
134 S. A. Adeshina and O. Aina
(MDGs), were introduced to complete the goals that MDGs could not accomplish.
The progress made by MDGs was uneven as vulnerable countries (i.e., African
countries, landlocked and least developed) could not realize these goals. The UN
then committed to creating more robust goals, ensuring that it encompasses the
three significant dimensions required for sustainable development: economic,
social, and environmental (Lee et al. 2016). It is essential to note that SDG is not
overriding the African Union (AU) Agenda 2063 and the New Partnership for
Africa’s Development (NEPAD); however, it is collaborative in achieving Africa’s
goal with its 17 goals and 169 targets. These targets consider various countries’
circumstances, and it is observed that it incorporates Africa’s goals. The authors in
Waal (2002) and DeGhetto et al. (2016) give a good summary of the AU Agenda
2063 and NEPAD.
As earlier stated, the 17 SDGs are interconnected, and a ripple effect is created
when one of the goals is achieved. Therefore, it can be assumed that of all the goals,
one will have a more significant effect when compared to the others. The goal whose
effect will transcend all others is goal 16, which aims to “promote peaceful and
inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and
build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels” (Lee et al. 2016).
This goal aims to ensure government institutions are effective and accountable,
bribery and corruption are reduced, and the rule of law is promoted among others –
in summary, ensuring good governance is fostered in a nation. Governance is the
means of steering sustainable development as it involves collaborations between
stakeholders in policy-making and implementation (Meadowcroft 2007; van Zeijl-
Rozema et al. 2008). Out of the central aspects in governance for sustainable devel-
opment (participation, policy coherence, reflexivity and adaptation, and democratic
institutions), the authors proposed that democratic institutions and participation are
the most significant (Glass and Newig 2019). The democratic institution is charac-
terized by a seamless electoral process, adequate access to information, the rule of
law and civil rights, and political liberties. However, true democracy and gover-
nance have been observed as significant reasons why African countries struggle to
achieve their developmental goals (Chimhowu and Hulme 2013). In Africa, the
electoral process is prone to election violence before, during, and even after elec-
tions. For example, during the elections in Nigeria in 2019, some of the triggers of
election violence included hate speech, insurgence and insecurity, and hijacking of
electoral materials, among others. Other triggers that hinder election integrity
include money laundering and misappropriation of funds. It is therefore pertinent to
find ways to reduce these triggers to guarantee that the SDG 16 goal and targets are
realized.
Another important SDG goal that significantly impacts other goals is SDG 3,
which focuses on “ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all ages.”
Good health and well-being are both a catalyst of SDG goals and an inheritor of the
lack of SDG. As a catalyst, good health is necessary to actualize the SDG goals as
the population (individuals) of a nation will be required to ensure the
The Role of AI in SDG: An African Perspective 135
implementation of these goals. For instance, Goal 7 focuses on providing afford-

able, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy, which requires engineers and
researchers to drive this focus. If these individuals are unhealthy, the goal cannot be
achieved optimally. The need for human capital is not only subject to SDG. It also
applies across the board as human beings are the most important driving force for
achieving these goals. As an inheritor, failure to achieve some of these SDG goals
will have repercussions on the well-being of individuals. For example, SDG 12
focuses on combating climate change and its impacts. If not achieved by reducing
pollutants among other targets, it could cause cancer, resulting in over seven million
individuals yearly (Laar et al. 2019). This shows that failure to achieve some of
these goals cycles back to SDG 3 (health and well-being), inhibiting its development.
One of the main factors inhibiting good health in Africa is that the ratio of the
population to trained health practitioners is low. According to Naicker et al. (2010),
for a population of 10,000 patients, the ratio of available doctors to nurses/midwives
is 2:11, which is low compared to Europe and America with a ratio of 32:78 and
19:49, respectively. These, however, result in burnout and, in some cases, prevent
access of patients to health care. Another critical factor hindering well-being in
Africa is the low allocation of resources. In 2001, a consensus was made by the
African Union States in Abuja that 15% of the government budget should be used
for the health sectors to ensure that citizens can afford health care and reduce out-
of-pocket payments. Unfortunately, it is seen that most countries in Africa spend
less than 7% of their GDP on health (Organization 2013). As a result of low financ-
ing, the maintenance or development of infrastructure that can aid diagnosis and
treatment is limited.
One of the most globally recognized leaders in AI, Andrew Ng gave a remark-
able quote about the field. He said, “Just as electricity transformed almost every-
thing 100 years ago, today I actually have a hard time thinking of an industry that I
don’t think AI will transform in the next several years” (Ng 2018). AI has the poten-
tial to foster or inhibit the development of SDG. The authors (Vinuesa et al. 2020)
showed that AI can be a double-edged sword as it can act as an enabler of the SDGs
targets by 75% and also cause a negative impact on these targets. A notable way AI
has helped achieve SDG is using a mobile app, PlantVillage Nuru, in Tanzania. The
app is used to diagnose diseases and pests on cassava plants using a mobile phone
that does not require Internet services (Mrisho et al. 2020). As a result, it potentially
reduces hunger (SDG 2) and fosters innovation (SDG 9). Another outstanding way
AI has been integrated with SDG is using clean water AI Test Systems (Agrawal
et al. 2018). It performs real-time analysis without the Internet to detect contamina-
tion. This solution is not only peculiar to developing countries like Africa. As a
result, SDG 6 aimed at water and sanitation, SDG 3 on good health and well-being,
and SDG 9 on innovation are somewhat achieved.
In subsequent sections of this chapter, the focus will be on the role of AI in
achieving SDG from an African perspective. Also, factors hindering the adoption of
AI in Africa, challenges, and future recommendations will be discussed in detail.
1.1 AI and SDG
One of the most significant ways AI is gradually introduced to African economies is

the development of strategies or blueprints to democratize AI in various sectors. For
example, Mauritius was the first Sub-Saharan African country with a published
national strategy. It is an essential step in the right direction because this action plan
helps countries deliberate, make, and document decisions that suit the peculiarities
of each country. Other countries with well-defined strategies are Zambia, Tunisia,
Botswana, and Egypt. Other countries may not have a well-defined strategy. Still, it
has been observed that countries are gradually initiating task force, agencies, and
commissions to find specific ways of integrating AI in their economies.
Another critical factor that must be considered in implementing these strategies
to achieve the set goals is the “How.” It defines implementation methods that rely
mainly on individuals’ skills and expertise. It is essential to have skilled and capable
individuals who can implement AI technologies to achieve SDG goals. One signifi-
cant way is educating indigenous citizens to gain more skills on how this can be
done. It makes human capital readily available and, most importantly, cost-effective.
Indeed, the initial investment in setting up education specified for AI in universities,
training, and research institutions is expensive. However, it is cheaper in the long
run as expatriates do not need to provide these solutions. It eliminates the need to
import devices or integrate AI. In addition to achieving the SDG goals, it also
increases its GDP. For example, Egypt, South Africa, Morocco, and Rwanda have
designated faculty and centers in some of their university to train and provide
knowledge on AI and its applications. In other countries like Ethiopia and Senegal,
they collaborate with entrepreneurs, foreign universities, and AI entrepreneurs to
ensure knowledge gaps are filled. For example, in 2019, a malaria challenge was
proposed by IBM Research Africa to participants in Indaba, an organization with
the aim of strengthening AI and machine learning in Africa.1 Also, collaboration
across AI-focused groups like Data Science Africa, Women in Machine Learning,
and others have increased research output and helped bridge knowledge gaps.
In addition, countries like Nigeria have strong AI communities that provide
knowledge and education, mentorship, internship, and collaborations between dif-
ferent stakeholders.
1.2 AI and SDG 3: Current State in Africa Today
Many companies (private and public) are gradually leveraging AI in health practices
to ensure citizens’ good health and well-being.
One of the most AI-savvy countries in Africa, Rwanda collaborated with Zipline
by using drones to deliver blood packs to remote areas within 75 km of the
1
https://zindi.africa/competitions/ibm-malaria-challenge
distribution centers. In addition, it utilized instant messaging (WhatsApp) to make

requests, GPS navigation, and air traffic control for delivery. This development has
saved lives, particularly women who lose blood during a Cesarean section, ensuring
equal distribution of blood as some hospitals have packs of unused blood. In con-
trast, some do not have (Ackerman and Strickland 2018).
Rwanda seems to be investing a lot into digital health as the country has a 10-year
partnership with Babylon (Babyl). This UK-based company makes health care
accessible and affordable. As a result of the collaboration, the created Babyl in
Rwanda provides virtual consultations with doctors and experts, appointment book-
ing, and prescription delivery and offers references when needed to the citizen. The
platform aims to use AI to analyze symptoms and provide follow-up treatments to
citizens in the future. An exciting part of information about Babyl is that citizens
can access prescriptions and lab tests with insurance cards. During the Covid-19
period, the Rwandan government launched robots to screen up to 150 people in
1 minute if they have a fever and report abnormal cases to officers. These robots also
can detect and correct individuals not wearing masks correctly. Zoro Bots made
these robots which cost $30,000/robot, a Belgian company specializing in making
robots.2 Ghana also collaborated with Zipline3 to deliver masks and personal protec-
tive equipment (PPE) during the election in December 2020. The drones were able
to deliver PPE to 29 polling units within fifteen (15) hours, saving 40%.
In tackling the shortage of radiologists in Egypt, a platform, Rology4 was created
that remotely matches images from the hospital to radiologists. This was particu-
larly useful during the Covid-19 when many cases needed diagnosis by radiologists.
In Kenya, a company, Tambua Health,5 developed ultrasound scanners that provide
a point of care for medical diagnosis. It leverages deep learning and acoustics to
diagnose respiratory diseases. These devices generate images from the sounds of
the heart and lungs. Also, in Kenya, AfyaRekod,6 a digital platform based on AI and
blockchain technology, was developed to capture and store patients’ data available
to health facilities in real-time. It provides data-driven insights to help doctors make
decisions and provide better patient health care. Also, in South Africa, a startup
hearX Group developed a smart hearing aid to tackle hearing loss and provide ear
care solutions. The startup also provides a self-test platform for hearing tests
(Kriel 2018).
These examples are notable ways AI has been integrated in health and is cur-
rently in operation. However, with the number of investments been made in research,
the number of platforms, apps, and devices related to health care will significantly
improve over the next decade.
2
https://www.afro.who.int/news/robots-use-rwanda-fight-against-covid-19
3
https://assets.ctfassets.net/pbn2i2zbvp41/3yrQaMNdJ1u1J2aSEucjzt/4412ea5d12896d15b7eb4
1a2212d0295/Zipline_Ghana_PPE_Global_Healthcare_Feb-2021.pdf
4
https://rology.health/products-and-services/
5
https://www.tambuahealth.com/scanners
6
https://afyarekod.com/
1.3 AI and SDG 16: Current State in Africa Today
One of the ways AI is being used to ensure strong institutions are built through bio-
metrics. Biometric identification systems have currently been used in various
African countries (Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Uganda, Angola,
Nigeria) for voters registration. Voters’ registration over the years has been used to
minimize electoral registration by integrating fingerprint identification and pictures
of voters. It eliminates “ghost voters,” duplicates registrations, quickens the voter’s
process, and encourages citizens to participate as it offers some sort of election
integrity. In Zimbabwe, 77% of names were removed from the voter’s rolls in 2018
(Marumahoko 2020). E-Collection of results in Nigeria was set up to collate results
automatically. In contrast, the manual collation of results has been carried out.
However, this failed as a result of poor network coverage to receive results from
various parts of the country, security challenges as some results were even hijacked
before results could be sent, and poor infrastructure.
Other standard AI tools used by African countries are drones and satellites to
take aerial view videos or pictures of areas in real-time. It is beneficial during elec-
tions to prevent electoral violence and rigging. Once an irregular pattern is noticed
in an area during the survey, security agencies can send an alert to curb
irregularities.
The UN Global Pulse Lab leveraged one of the AI techniques, natural language
processing (NLP), to analyze radio and social media data. These data were used to
identify trending topics that could hinder peace among the citizens via fake news
and detect social tensions and misconceptions that could cause conflicts among citi-
zens. This is useful as it helps government agencies and takes action at the nick of
time before things escalate. Also, the team developed a tool called QataLog, also
used to extract, analyze, and visualize data from radio and social media (Pulse 2018).
These are some practical areas where AI has been used in ensuring peace, justice,
and strong institutions are built. It was observed that most technologies are currently
at the conceptual stages (proof of concept) and have not yet been implemented. It is
hoped that the focus will be on the implementation in the next decade rather than
just writing research papers.
2 Challenges of Integrating AI in the SDGs
According to reports in Insights (2020), it was stated that sub-Saharan Africa scored
the lowest in the Government AI Readiness Index, while the United States topped
the list. This index was based on the government’s willingness and ability to adopt
AI and the availability of technological skills and tools (high-quality data and infra-
structure). As observed from the list, Mauritius, South Africa, and Seychelles were
the top three countries in Africa. However, Mauritius ranked 45 in the world with
53.86%. From this report, Africa has a long way to go in integrating AI in most sec-
tors of the economy as there are some mitigating factors still hindering its adoption.
“If you Fail to Plan, you are planning to fail” – this famous quote made by
Benjamin Franklin many years ago summarizes the effect of not having a strategic
plan for implementing AI. As mentioned earlier, many countries have yet to have a
published blueprint that guides decisions, collaborations, and implementation of AI
to suit each country’s needs. Therefore, there is no concrete governance or frame-
work to ensure ethical issues and accountability. It is a sensitive issue, especially for
the health sector, where activities must be backed up with accountability. In addi-
tion, implications or rules must be adhered to in the event of an adverse effect occur-
ring due to inappropriate use of AI.
AI can be misused, which could spark violence and even a coup if not adequately
managed. Recently in Gabon, there was a controversy about a video of the president
released by the government when there were rumors regarding the president’s
health. The military government staged an attempted coup, although it failed. Some
opposition to the government claimed that the video was forged and was created
using deepfake. Deepfake is a synthetic creation of media using deep learning (one
of the most prominent AI techniques). It was later resolved by experts who debunked
the rumor that it was deepfake. If stringent rules are not implemented to fish out and
punish citizen offenders primarily, there will be a continuous cycle. Technology like
deepfakes will be used, spark controversies leading to violence or coup, and hinder
the rule of law.
During the electoral process, biometric identification and fingerprints have con-
tributed to ensuring that governance is free and fair. However, according to reports
in Adeniyi and Adeshina (2019), there have been incidences of underage voters
during registration in Nigeria. The field agents are saddled with deciding if a voter
should be registered or not. As a result, it sparked controversy leading to citizens
questioning the biometric technology integrated with the electoral process. In
Kenya, biometric identification systems led to arguments between political players.
It was believed that the accreditation system before voting was sabotaged (Jacobsen
2020). These incidences could lead to skepticism in other areas like health care,
where citizens will not trust the government enough to be involved in providing AI
solutions.
It is a known fact that AI technologies thrive on data as the effectiveness of a
proffered solution is dependent on the quality of data used. Unfortunately, data is
not readily accessible and available in most African countries. In some instances,
some organizations, e.g., diagnosis and test centers, may not understand the useful-
ness of data received. As a result, it will not have organized infrastructure and data
management resources to utilize the available data. Therefore, most African
researchers are forced to use foreign-based datasets, which may not be a true reflec-
tion of the peculiarities common to African society. Another challenge common to
creating natural language processing applications is the diversity of African lan-
guages, thus limiting available training data. Africa contributes about 30.15% of
languages globally, about 2000 languages from the continent alone (Orife et al.
2020). African languages are highly complex and very difficult to generalize, like
English. They have diverse lexical and grammatical tone patterns, phonologies, and
morphologies. A lot of investment is therefore required in creating databases that
are cost-intensive.
The cost of integrating AI can be considered as one of the significant challenges

the continent is facing. Cost transcends the entire research cycle from data acquisi-
tion down to maintenance and upgrading of these solutions. Data acquisition
involves collection and includes cleaning and annotation, which require the exper-
tise of individuals in the domain fields of the data used. Engaging this expertise
either by using locally based experts (which are already limited in supply) or out-
sourcing to organizations is expensive. Computation resources used to build these
AI solutions are expensive as high computing servers, computers, and cloud com-
puting services (Azure, Google Cloud) are required. These platforms require a sta-
ble infrastructure for optimal use, i.e., electricity and Internet. For example, training
a machine learning model on a cloud platform could take days and require good
Internet and stable electricity. Unfortunately, this is not readily available in Africa.
3 Discussions and Way Forward
In the previous sections of this chapter, the current ways AI has been integrated into
achieving SDGs 3 and 16 and the challenges have been highlighted in detail.
However, in this section, the focus will be on things that can be done to foster AI.
According to reports in Botero et al. (2021), sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia
scored the lowest in the Rule of Law Index (RoLI) 2021 in the world. However,
Rwanda topped the list as the country in Africa with the best rule of law. The report
also defined the rule of law based on the following universal principles: account-
ability, just law, open government, and accessible and impartial justice. These prin-
ciples are further developed or analyzed based on constraints on government powers,
absence of corruption, open government, fundamental rights, order and security,
regulatory enforcement, and civil and criminal justice.
Hence, one of the ways of improving the rule of law is digitizing the court sys-
tems. Digitizing court systems will improve accessibility to civil justice, reduce
delays in resolving cases, improve transparency, ensure accountability, and reduce
corruption. Improving these factors will go a long way in ensuring peace and justice
are achieved as issues hindering the rule of law will be tackled. The authors in
Finucan et al. (2018) proffered digital tools such as creating a resource planning
system, using cloud-based tools for archiving, using online tools to provide infor-
mation, and offering virtual help desks.
It is seen that most collaborations and partnerships that are still in operation are
usually with companies based in foreign-based countries. To the best of the author’s
knowledge, the number of AI companies in Africa that provide devices that can
promote peace, justice, strong institutions, and health is very few. It has been
observed that most collaborations usually between foreign-based research AI com-
panies are expensive. Therefore, AI researchers need to go beyond just writing
papers for publications based on research. It is also paramount for them to look at
ways to implement these solutions using locally sourced materials.
One way of reducing the dependence on foreign-based AI-based devices is lever-

aging mobile phones due to their gradual penetration in Africa. It is predicted that
smartphone connections or penetration will almost be doubled to about 678 million
by the end of 2025.7 The numbers seem promising. However, researchers must
explore building machine learning-based algorithms that can run effectively on
mobile without needing high computational resources.
The government, private, and public agencies need to invest in AI education and
collaborations. This education should not be limited to individuals who work as AI
engineers or researchers. It should be included in the school’s curriculum right from
the primary level so that the next generation will have a basic understanding of AI
and its application.
Zipline has contributed to fostering AI in the health and electoral process in both
Rwanda and Ghana. Other African countries can take a cue from these countries and
be beneficiaries. For example, information from the Zipline’s website8 shows that
Cote d’Ivoire is also collaborating with Zipline to deliver blood, vaccines, and med-
ical products by the end of 2022. Also, one of the states in Nigeria, Kaduna, signed
a deal with Zipline to deliver Covid-19 vaccines and other medical products (blood
and medicine) in the state. This deal will help the government eliminate the need to
purchase ultra-low freezers and foster quick delivery of the vaccines.
The interesting thing about the uptake of AI is that these recommendations
focused on SDGs 3 and 16 have a significant impact on the other SDGs. For exam-
ple, in making more investments in education focused on AI, SDG 4 aimed at pro-
viding quality education, SDG 9 to foster innovation and building infrastructure,
and SGD 19 to strengthen the global partnership for sustainable development were
impacted positively. Also, due to quality education, jobs are created due to innova-
tion resulting in full and productive employment, improving the economy (SDG 9)
and eliminating poverty and hunger (SDG 1). This is just a brief illustration of the
importance of these SDGs and their impact on other SDGs.
4 Conclusion
The potential of AI in fostering and inhibiting SDGs 3 and 16 has been discussed in
the previous sections of this chapter. In addition, ways of mitigating the factors
inhibiting AI deployment in achieving goals were also discussed. This shows that
more effort needs to be carried out by various stakeholders (i.e., government, inves-
tors, citizens, and international bodies) to ensure that the potentials of AI are opti-
mally maximized. It is believed that with gradual reformations and implementation,
Africa will be on its way to being a global central AI hub.
7
https://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/GSMA_MobileEconomy
2020_SSA_Eng.pdf
8
https://flyzipline.com/press/zipline-to-expand-to-ivory-coast/
References
Ackerman, Evan, and Eliza Strickland. 2018. Medical Delivery Drones Take Flight in East Africa.
IEEE Spectrum 55 (1): 34–35.
Adeniyi, Ahmed A., and Steve A. Adeshina. 2019. Automatic Age Classification of Prospective
Voters Using Deep Convolutional Neural Network. Paper read at 2019 15th International
Conference on Electronics, Computer and Computation (ICECCO).
Agrawal, Ajay, Joshua Gans, and Avi Goldfarb. 2018. Prediction Machines: The Simple Economics
of Artificial Intelligence, AI-Driven Test System Detects Bacteria in Water. Intel Harvard
Business Press.
Botero, Juan Carlos, Mark David Agrast, and Alejandro Ponce. 2021. The World Justice Project
(WJP) Rule of Law Index. Washington, DC: World Justice Project.
Chimhowu, Admos, and David Hulme. 2013. Africa and the MDGs: Challenges and Priorities. In
The Millennium Development Goals and Beyond, 170–181. Routledge.
DeGhetto, Kaitlyn, Jacob R. Gray, and Moses N. Kiggundu. 2016. The African Union’s Agenda
2063: Aspirations, Challenges, and Opportunities for Management Research. Africa Journal of
Management 2 (1): 93–116.
Finucan, Logan, EB Sierra, and N Rajesh. 2018. Smart Courts: Roadmap for Digital Transformation
of Justice in Africa.
Glass, Lisa-Maria, and Jens Newig. 2019. Governance for Achieving the Sustainable Development
Goals: How Important Are Participation, Policy Coherence, Reflexivity, Adaptation and
Democratic Institutions? Earth System Governance 2: 100031.
Insights, Oxford. 2020. Government AI Readiness Index 2020. Ottawa: IDRC. Retrieved October
1, 2020.
Jacobsen, Katja Lindskov. 2020. Biometric Voter Registration: A New Modality of Democracy
Assistance? Cooperation and Conflict 55 (1): 127–148.
Kriel, Glenneis. 2018. Hearing Tests Go Digital. Finweek 2018(10): 12–12.
Laar, Amos K., Alma J. Adler, Agnes M. Kotoh, Helena Legido-Quigley, Isabelle L. Lange, Pablo
Perel, and Peter Lamptey. 2019. Health System Challenges to Hypertension and Related Non-
Communicable Diseases Prevention and Treatment: Perspectives from Ghanaian Stakeholders.
BMC Health Services Research 19 (1): 1–13.
Lee, Bandy X., Finn Kjaerulf, Shannon Turner, Larry Cohen, Peter D. Donnelly, Robert
Muggah, Rachel Davis, Anna Realini, Berit Kieselbach, and Lori Snyder MacGregor. 2016.
Transforming Our World: Implementing the 2030 Agenda Through Sustainable Development
Goal Indicators. Journal of Public Health Policy 37 (1): 13–31.
Marumahoko, Sylvester. 2020. Biometric Voter Registration, Zimbabwe.
Meadowcroft, James. 2007. Who Is in Charge Here? Governance for Sustainable Development in
a Complex World. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 9 (3–4): 299–314.
Mrisho, Latifa M., Neema A. Mbilinyi, Mathias Ndalahwa, Amanda M. Ramcharan, Annalyse
K. Kehs, Peter C. McCloskey, Harun Murithi, David P. Hughes, and James P. Legg. 2020.
Accuracy of a Smartphone-Based Object Detection Model, PlantVillage Nuru, in Identifying
the Foliar Symptoms of the Viral Diseases of Cassava–CMD and CBSD. Frontiers in Plant
Science 11: 1964.
Naicker, Saraladevi, John B. Eastwood, Jacob Plange-Rhule, and Roger C. Tutt. 2010. Shortage of
Healthcare Workers in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Nephrological Perspective. Clinical Nephrology
74: S129–S133.
Ng, Andrew. 2018. AI Is the New Electricity. O’Reilly Media.
Organization, World Health. 2013. State of Health Financing in the African Region.
Orife, Iroro, Julia Kreutzer, Blessing Sibanda, Daniel Whitenack, Kathleen Siminyu, Laura
Martinus, Jamiil Toure Ali, Jade Abbott, Vukosi Marivate, and Salomon Kabongo. 2020.
Masakhane—Machine Translation For Africa. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.11529.
Pulse, UN Global. 2018. Experimenting With Big Data and Artificial Intelligence to Support Peace
and Security.
van Zeijl-Rozema, Annemarie, Ron Cörvers, René Kemp, and Pim Martens. 2008. Governance for
Sustainable Development: A Framework. Sustainable Development 16 (6): 410–421.
Goals. Nature Communications 11 (1): 1–10.
Waal, Alex de. 2002. What’s New in the ‘New Partnership for Africa’s Development’? International
Affairs 78 (3): 463–476.
Artificial Intelligence for Advancing
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):
An Inclusive Democratized Low-Code
Approach
Meng-Leong How, Sin-Mei Cheah, Yong Jiet Chan, Aik Cheow Khor,
and Eunice Mei Ping Say
Abstract Despite the world becoming more interconnected than ever before,
inequality and poverty continue to pose a threat to sustainable development. In
response to these challenges, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) promotes Global Citizenship Education (GCED), which
aims to instill values, attitudes, and behaviors in people so that they may consider
the importance of responsible global citizenship – a concept that entails creativity,
innovation, and dedication to peace, human rights, and sustainable development,
among others. The GCED program raises the awareness of students of all ages to
recognize that these issues are global in nature rather than localized and encourage
them to participate actively in contributing to a peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, safe,
and sustainable society. This research demonstrates how a user-friendly, low-code,
human-centric probabilistic strategy can be utilized to democratize artificial intel-
ligence (AI) usage, thus allowing analysts who are not computer scientists to use AI
for social good. This reasoning approach can be useful in the predictive modeling of
social issues that GCED is concerned with, which are demonstrated by the exam-
ples: (1) promoting global sustainable development, (2) alleviating malnutrition, (3)
increasing financial inclusion for people who are underserved by traditional bank-
ing institutions, and (4) strengthening food security resilience.
Keywords Global citizenship education · AI for social good · Bayesian networks ·

Artificial intelligence
M.-L. How (*)

The University of Newcastle, Australia, Callaghan, Australia
S.-M. Cheah
Y. J. Chan · A. C. Khor · E. M. P. Say
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
146 M.-L. How et al.
1 Introduction
Even as the world becomes increasingly interconnected, the effects of inequality

and poverty on development and sustainability persist. The Unified Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has been advocating
Global Citizenship Education (GCED) in an effort to foster responsible global citi-
zenship through creativity, innovation, and a commitment to peace (Pigozzi 2006).
In this way, students of all ages would be able to appreciate that these problems are
global in scope. Those who participate in it are encouraged to actively support more
peaceful and inclusive societies. The premise is that students of all ages must be
educated appropriately to become responsible global citizens. Increasingly, artifi-
cial intelligence (AI) is being used for greater good (Floridi et al. 2020). Although
it is difficult for educators or social scientists who are not trained in computer sci-
ence to code and implement AI algorithms, it is nevertheless possible to do so. An
easy-to-use probabilistic strategy for augmenting human thought is demonstrated in
this research. This inclusion empowers analysts who are not computer scientists to
apply AI for predictive modeling of social concerns. Using this human-centric prob-
abilistic approach as a cognitive scaffolding, teachers may encourage students to
ask more questions that will help them become responsible global citizens.
This chapter examines how a user-friendly low-code human-centric probabilistic
approach can be used to democratize AI usage, allowing non-computer scientists to
use AI to contribute to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Examples will be
presented in Sect. 4 of this chapter to show how this inclusive, low-code, human-
centric probabilistic reasoning approach can be utilized in conjunction with AI tech-
niques to harness actionable predictive insights for (1) the improvement of global
sustainable development, (2) the amelioration of malnutrition, (3) the advancement
of financial inclusion for people who are unserved by traditional banking institu-
tions, and (4) the strengthening of food security resilience. The following is a quick
summary of the four examples that will be presented in greater detail in Sect. 4 of
this chapter.
Example 1 will show how global sustainable development is crucial for human-
ity’s survival using a predictive model. It is based on a study titled Artificial
Intelligence-Enhanced Decision Support for Informing Global Sustainable
Development: A Human-Centric AI-Thinking Approach (How et al. 2020b).
Environmental health and ecosystem vitality performance indicators from 180
countries were analyzed using an inclusive and democratized no-code AI-enabled
approach, revealing hidden tensions between two fundamental dimensions of sus-
tainability: (1) environmental health, which promotes economic growth and
increases affluence, and (2) ecosystem vitality, which deteriorates as a result of
industrialization and urbanization.
Example 2 will examine issues in malnutrition, which is one of the world’s most
serious but under-addressed sustainability issues, according to the World Health
Organization (WHO) and the World Bank. The second example is based on a study
titled Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Predictive Insights for Ameliorating Global
Artificial Intelligence for Advancing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)… 147
Malnutrition: A Human-Centric AI-Thinking Approach (How and Chan 2020).

Malnutrition is a double burden, because both under- and over-nutrition lead to
nutritional dysfunction or imbalance. Malnutrition causes significant and detrimen-
tal economic impact on individuals and populations. The growing economic cost of
malnutrition that many countries are now facing is compounded by the coexistence
of malnutrition and overweight, obesity, or diet-related noncommunicable diseases.
Using a World Bank dataset from 180 countries, example 2 shows that AI can be
democratized to enable analysts without a background in computer science to use
human-centered explainable AI to simulate the dynamics between malnutrition,
health, and population.
Example 3 will investigate issues that hinder financial inclusion. It is based on a
study titled Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Predictive Insights for Advancing
Financial Inclusion: A Human-Centric AI-Thinking Approach (How et al. 2020c).
According to the World Bank, financial inclusion is critical to poverty reduction and
fostering prosperity. Many of the most vulnerable groups, such as low-income fami-
lies and microbusinesses, have little to no access to financial services. With the
growing demand for inclusive financial solutions, AI has the potential to play a
substantial role in assisting financial service providers (FSPs) in better understand-
ing potential consumer needs. The issue that AI must solve should be centered on
the customer, not the product, nor on increasing revenue for the FSP. AI is uniquely
suited to assisting FSPs in understanding the preferences of prospective customers
because it is capable of rapidly deciphering data patterns that humans may struggle
to analyze, especially when planning for unforeseen emergencies.
Example 4 will provide insights that can improve food security, which has
become a greater global concern as pressures on the food system increase. It is
based on a study titled Predictive Insights for Improving the Resilience of Global
Food Security Using Artificial Intelligence (How et al. 2020a). A probabilistic
approach based on human-centric artificial intelligence can be used to develop a
predictive model from quantitative and qualitative data from the Global Food
Security Index (GFSI). Using predictive modeling on the GFSI dataset, an inclusive
AI-based approach is used to deduce relationships between food affordability, food
availability, food quality and safety, and natural resource resilience.
2 Research Problem and Research Questions
When it comes to analyzing the factors that influence global citizenship education,
AI-based approaches are beneficial. There are also numerous projects that encour-
age the use of AI for social good (Taddeo and Floridi 2018). The problem, however,
is that people who do not have computer programming abilities found it difficult to
apply AI to examine data. To address this issue, the research questions that will
guide this work are as follows:
RQ1: How can analysts who are not trained in computer science use AI to examine
data for the benefit of society?
RQ2: Is there a low-code, inclusive, and democratized strategy to applying artificial
intelligence that does not necessitate considerable computer software
programming?
3 Methods
To provide actionable predictive insights that can be used to contribute to social

good, an inclusive, democratized, low-code AI-enhanced technique can be deployed.
To demonstrate how an inclusive low-code human-centric probabilistic reasoning
technique can be applied in the predictive modeling of social issues that are con-
cerned with GCED, several case studies are explored. They are (1) promoting global
sustainable development, (2) alleviating hunger, (3) advancing financial inclusion
for people who are underserved by traditional banking institutions, and (4) increas-
ing food security resilience.
In addition to providing extensive customization of variables and artificial intel-
ligence algorithms, low-code tools offer speedy drag-and-drop functions in predic-
tive simulations (Chang and Ko 2017). Humans can concentrate on the all-important
big picture, logical reasoning, and productive collaborative discussions with stake-
holders across multiple domain verticals via “what-if” scenarios for optimizations
and risk assessments, while AI-enabled software augments human ingenuity by tak-
ing care of the heavy lifting of making everything run smoothly in simulations.
Historically, AI was more closely affiliated with computer science departments
in universities than with faculties devoted to sustainability research. In recent years,
AI has gained a larger foothold in business. This demonstrates the critical impor-
tance of teaching individuals not just in problem-solving that utilizes key notions
from any one profession but also in AI. AI supports analysts who are not computer
scientists by helping them ask better questions. Apart from computer science depart-
ments, educators from a variety of academic disciplines have been attempting to
introduce students to popular AI concepts such as machine vision, natural language
processing (NLP), machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), or reinforcement
learning (RL). Some students were also trained to create artificial neural networks
(ANN), recurrent neural networks (RNN), convolutional neural networks (CNN), or
generative adversarial networks (GAN). However, many AI applications still oper-
ate like black boxes, as Correa et al. (2009) have pointed out. They noted that the
interactions between the nodes (or variables) in an artificial neural network may be
compared to a black box. These interactions are either concealed from the user or
are simply too complicated for the layperson to comprehend. To supplement the
work of researchers and analysts who are focused on sustainability-related issues,
but are not computer scientists, data that is AI-enhanced and evidence-based would
augment their human-centric reasoning abilities. The current study provides an
alternative AI-based strategy that may aid in human-centric thinking.
3.1 Rationale for Using the AI-Based Bayesian

Network Approach
When it comes to AI-related research, there are numerous tools available. The
Bayesian network technique for statistical data analysis is one such useful tool to
visualize the relationships between data variables (van de Schoot et al. 2014). A
Bayesian network (BN) is a type of probabilistic graphical model that shows the
relationships between variables, which can be conditionally dependent or indepen-
dent. The BN technique is particularly well suited for evaluating non-parametric
data because it does not impose the requirement of having a normal parametric
distribution in the underlying parameters of a model (How and Hung 2019).
Through the use of BN, practitioners may undertake hypothesis testing by incor-
porating information from previous studies into the current one. When analyzing
data using the BN method, it is therefore not necessary to undertake many rounds of
null hypothesis testing.
The Bayesian approach has also been used by researchers such as Kaplan (2016),
Levy (2016), Sperotto et al. (2019), and How (2019) because it enables them to
measure information gain, as described in Claude Shannon’s information theory
(1953). Shannon’s theory calculates the probabilistic amount of commonality
between two data distributions that are not necessarily parametric.
3.2 The Bayesian Theorem
An overview of the Bayesian theorem is provided here, but it will not do justice to
the rich corpus of BN. Readers who are interested in learning more about BN are
recommended to read the works of Cowell et al. (1999), Jensen (1999), and Korb
and Nicholson (2010).
According to the mathematician and theologian Reverend Thomas Bayes (1763),
the mathematical formula, which BN was built upon, is:
P E |H . P H
P H |E
P E
A hypothesis is represented by H and a piece of evidence is represented by

E. P(H|E) is referred to as the conditional probability of the hypothesis H, which
refers to the likelihood of the hypothesis H happening if and only if the evidence E
is correct. As an alternative, it is referred to as the posterior probability, which refers
to what the probability of the hypothesis H being true is after calculating how much
the evidence E has an impact on the likelihood that the hypothesis H is correct.
Independent of one another, the probabilities of the hypothesis H being true and
the likelihood of the evidence E being true are represented by P(H) and P(E),
respectively. P(H) and P(E) are referred to as the prior and marginal probability,
respectively. P(E|H) is a probability distribution for the evidence E. In other words,
it shows the likelihood of evidence E being true if and only if the hypothesis H is
true. The quotient P(E|H)/P(E) reflects the amount of support that the evidence E
offers for the hypothesis H.
3.3 The Research Model
The major purpose of the current work is to provide one of many viable approaches
of educing (drawing out) AI-augmented thinking, in order to guide ongoing research
and policymaking. However, the goal of providing the exemplars is not to promote
Bayesian network as the best tool for educing AI-augmented thinking, but rather to
encourage analysts to consider the trustworthiness of AI-based analysis techniques
in general, and hopefully, to exercise AI-augmented thinking when they are discuss-
ing AI and sustainability-related issues with their stakeholders. In other words,
when it comes to problem-solving, it is much more crucial to ask questions and
consider alternative solutions than attempting to arrive at the so-called absolutely
correct answer.
The probabilistic reasoning methods that were utilized in this chapter were based
on the BN. It has been shown to be effective in investigating optimization and pre-
dictive modeling of relationships between variables of theoretical constructs, even
when they are not physically related. This is because BN can incorporate multi-
variable analytical concepts such as Markov blankets (Tsamardinos et al. 2003) and
response surface methodology (Myers et al. 2009).
Two distinct types of analytics will be shown with the aid of semi-supervised
machine learning BN models in examples 1 to 4 in the subsequent sections.
The first type is:
Descriptive analytics of “what has already occurred?”
The purpose of this technique is to employ descriptive analytics to uncover themes within
the acquired data. For descriptive analytics, BN modeling will automatically determine the
data distribution of each column in the dataset using the parameter estimate procedure.
The second type is:

Predictive analytics based on hypothetical “what-if?” scenarios
The purpose of this technique is to use predictive analytics for in silico experiments with
completely adjustable settings in order to forecast counterfactual consequences. To assist
policymakers in their decision-making, a probabilistic Bayesian technique will be utilized
to model best- and worst-case scenarios for various sustainability-related levels. In predic-
tive analytics, counterfactual simulations can be used to investigate patterns in the datasets.
4 Discussion
4.1 Example 1: An Inclusive and Democratized Low-Code

Approach of Using AI for Global Sustainable Development
4.1.1 Environmental Performance Index
The world is currently undergoing an era of data-driven environmental policymak-

ing. Stakeholders and policymakers are increasingly interested in adopting evidence-
based data to inform decision-making as environmental policymaking has gradually
transitioned away from its old practices at the end of the twentieth century. In
response to these demands, the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) was estab-
lished in partnership with the World Economic Forum by academics and policy
specialists at Yale University’s Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and
Columbia University’s Center for International Earth Science Information Network
(CIESIN).
The EPI (Yale University 2018) was regarded as the global metric for measuring
environmental sustainability. EPI provides a snapshot of the environmental perfor-
mance of 180 countries using 24 performance indicators across 10 problem areas.
Countries are graded on a scale of 0–100. Nations with a long history of natural
resource conservation, public health protection, and decoupling of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from economic activity will receive a high score. On the other
hand, nations with low EPI ratings suggest that they need to consider the importance
of national sustainability initiatives, particularly in the areas of biodiversity conser-
vation, air quality improvement, and GHG emission reduction. It is worth noting
that effective governance emerges as a necessary condition for balancing these dis-
parate facets of sustainability. The EPI brings attention to the areas that need the
most attention from policymakers. These indicators also shed light on the best prac-
tices of high-performing nations and serve as a guide for countries aspiring to be
sustainability leaders.
4.1.2 How Unified Analytics of Sustainability Indicators (Related to EPI

and SDGI) Can Inform Education and Policymaking
EPI data offered by NASA’s Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (2018)
may be used to facilitate discussions about AI and sustainability-related issues
through descriptive analytics and predictive simulations.
For a country to accomplish the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a
strong EPI score is a significant factor to the achievement of those objectives.
Governments are under increasing pressure to defend their performance on sustain-
ability management and pollution control as measured by the EPI and Sustainable
Development Goals Index (SDGI). The SDGI exemplifies this dedication by
placing measurements at the center of the policymaking process when defining

international objectives and assessing progress toward the SDG goals.
The EPI metrics, in combination with the SDGI, serve as a data-driven and
empirical approach to environmental preservation, based on rigorous data analytics
and statistical analysis. These indicators enable policymakers to analyze trends,
identify best practices, highlight policy successes and failures, and maximize the
benefits of investments in environmental protection by highlighting policy triumphs
and failures. The SDGI is the first global research to analyze how well nations are
doing in terms of meeting the SDGs. Produced annually by the Bertelsmann Stiftung
and the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), the SDGI Report
examines 156 countries’ positions in terms of the 17 SDG target items. It also pro-
vides guidance on which issues should be prioritized in the SDG targets that are
expected to be achieved by 2030 from an environmental perspective. The sources of
data came from international organizations (e.g., the World Health Organization,
the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the
International Labour Organization, the United Nations International Children’s
Emergency Fund, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development),
non-governmental organizations (e.g., Oxfam and the Tax Justice Network), house-
hold surveys (e.g., the Gallup World Poll), and peer-reviewed journals.
The results of the data analysis revealed that nations with strong EPI results also
had good rankings on the SDGI, which is a measure of developmental progress.
Apart from this, the data revealed a positive relationship between GDP per capita
and EPI. Nations with higher GDP per capita achieved higher ranks on the EPI. The
process of combining data on environmental performance into composite scores
and establishing a worldwide ranking of nations has shown to be effective in influ-
encing policy agendas in many ways. Supporting stronger global data systems, it
seems, will be critical to better management of sustainable development concerns in
the coming years. With it, we have arrived at a point in time where environmental
policymaking may be conducted in a more educated, focused, and success-
ful manner.
The EPI is a data-driven and empirical approach to environmental policymaking.
It is based on 24 performance indicators across 10 issue categories: air quality and
sanitation, water and sanitation, heavy metals, biodiversity and habitat, forests, fish-
eries, climate and energy, air pollution, water resources, and agriculture. To estimate
how far they are from achieving the required environmental objectives, policymak-
ers may compare their EPI score with these measures. To achieve a balance between
environmental health and ecosystem vitality, policymakers must be able to recog-
nize trends, potential issues, and best practices and optimize returns from environ-
mental investments.
Humanity’s survival depends on the achievement of sustainable development
(Griggs et al. 2013). The utilization of primary socio-environmental data for analy-
sis is critical for informing policymakers on sustainable development decision-
making, especially in developing countries. Non-computer scientists can also utilize
artificial intelligence to assess EPI data relevant to sustainability by employing a
Fig. 1 Bayesian predictive model for the analysis of global sustainable development
low-code and inclusive approach. It is possible to employ this human-centered

approach to probabilistic thinking as a cognitive scaffold to inspire analysts to ask
more questions and to provide decision-making support to inform sustainable devel-
opment policymaking.
Environmental health and ecosystem vitality performance indicators are among
the metrics included in the 2018 EPI, which includes data from 180 countries (Gupta
and Vegelin 2016). The data from the 2018 EPI were subjected to an inclusive and
democratized no-code AI-enabled analysis by the first author (see Fig. 1). The
results revealed hidden tensions between the two fundamental dimensions of sus-
tainability: (1) environmental health, which improves economic growth and
increases affluence, and (2) ecosystem vitality, which deteriorates as a result of
industrialization and urbanization.

Approach of Using AI for Ameliorating Malnutrition
The World Health Organization and the World Bank have highlighted malnutrition
as one of the world’s most critical but least-addressed sustainability challenges
(Briend et al. 2006). Over- and undernutrition can contribute to malnutrition, which
is defined as a malfunction or imbalance in the body’s ability to absorb and utilize
nutrients (Shrimpton and Rokx 2012). A country’s economic well-being can be
negatively impacted by the double burden of malnutrition. The economic costs of
malnutrition continue to climb as the burden of malnutrition grows (Delisle 2008).
Malnutrition is a public health problem, but it also presents a rare opportunity for
coordinated and integrated action on malnutrition in all its forms. The discovery of
the “double burden” of malnutrition was significant as a motivator for achieving
major global policy and program objectives.
In recent decades, diet-related epidemiology has seen major changes because of
a changing global nutrition environment affected by globalization, population
upheavals, and economic development. The double burden of malnutrition that
many nations are now confronting is defined by the coexistence of undernutrition
and obesity or diet-related noncommunicable illnesses (Prentice 2018). In many
nations, these various forms of malnutrition coexist at the national and family lev-
els, as well as throughout the life span. According to the 2018 Global Nutrition
Report (2018), approximately two billion individuals globally are overweight or
obese, while another two billion are deficient in micronutrients. Around 38.3 mil-
lion children under the age of 5 are overweight, 150.8 million are stunted, and
another 50.5 million are physiologically wasted away because of malnutrition. For
individuals, their families, and nations, the developmental, economic, social, and
medical consequences of this worldwide burden of malnutrition are severe and long
lasting. Today, roughly one in every three people worldwide suffers from some type
of malnutrition, including wasteness, stuntedness, vitamin and mineral deficiencies,
overweight or obesity, and diet-related noncommunicable illnesses. Nutrition-
related factors account for roughly 45% of mortality in children under the age of 5
(mostly due to malnutrition), and low- and middle-income countries are now seeing
a concurrent increase in juvenile obesity (Zhang et al. 2016).
Both health and economic prosperity are dependent on nutrition. On the other
hand, both malnutrition and obesity-related disorders significantly contribute to the
disease burden in these countries. Individuals and communities often face unsus-
tainable economic expenses, which act as a severe impediment to economic and
social growth. Malnutrition creates a negative impact on the individual’s health,
resulting in higher healthcare expenses and decreased work productivity. This, in
turn, has the potential to prolong a cycle of poverty due to bad health. Malnutrition’s
double burden therefore has a significant and detrimental economic effect on people
and society. As malnutrition’s burden continues to grow, so does its economic cost.
While the double burden of malnutrition is a huge public health concern, it also
presents an unprecedented opportunity for alignment and collaboration in the fight
against malnutrition in all of its manifestations. The recognition of the double bur-
den of malnutrition should be seen as a motivator for tackling critical global objec-
tives via policy and program initiatives.
Determining the strategy to effective healthcare is critical for evaluating the per-
formance and planning of healthcare delivery. Understanding the relationships
between population health data, economic indicators, and access to health services
is critical for policymakers in assessing the consequences of evolving healthcare
delivery systems. Unmet healthcare requirements may be particularly acute for
minority population groups, including children, the elderly, and pregnant women.
Studies addressing the association between socioeconomic position, gender dispari-
ties in illness incidence, and access to healthcare have historically influenced poli-
cymaking (Adler et al. 1993) and will continue to do so.
Beyond argument is the critical need for better nutrition, health, and population
data to advise policymakers on a wide range of issues pertaining to public health
planning, healthcare reform, and healthcare delivery assessments. To contribute
toward this noble quest, the World Bank has made the information on malnutrition,
healthcare, and demographic statistics freely accessible (World Bank 2019). Even
though the World Bank’s dataset contains data from all countries, analysts (e.g.,
healthcare professionals, policymakers, and researchers) using frequentist
approaches that employ null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) may encounter
statistical insignificance due to the fact that the data was aggregated by years at the
global system level (e.g., there are only 19 rows of data from 2001 to 2018). Analysts
may not be able to predict with precision the repercussions, effectiveness, appropri-
ateness, and costs of treatment for specific sectors of the population or for various
healthcare delivery and remuneration structures. When this is the case, they are
unable to make confident statements regarding the benefit of healthcare investments
for population subgroups, regions, or countries. In theory, features in nutrition,
health, and population data may be gleaned by ad hoc analysis of a variety of
sources, including surveys, illness registries, computerized patient records, and
electronic financial transactions for health insurance claims. In reality, however, no
one path will provide information pertinent to every research subject.
To overcome this challenge, a simple AI-based approach is used to demonstrate
how AI can aid in the intuitive application of human-centric probabilistic reasoning
to interpret the counterfactual results generated by predictive models. AI-based ana-
lytics can provide a rather complete source of information for determining regional
health requirements, assessing disease trends, and forecasting healthcare expendi-
ture patterns. This may be accomplished via the use of AI-based analytics to fore-
cast information about healthcare trends, prices, and the efficacy and quality of
healthcare services. Additionally, AI-based analytics may help enhance treatment
quality by making data accessible to institutions and user groups for use in quality
improvement programs and regional health planning. AI-powered analytics may
also be beneficial in resolving policy issues and political debates around health-
care reform.
Non-computer scientists can employ human-centered, explainable AI to simulate
the dynamics between hunger, health, and population indices. Bayesian predictive
modeling can be used to highlight how human-centered probabilistic reasoning can

be used to examine the dynamics of global malnutrition and then optimize condi-
tions to attain the best-case scenario (see Fig. 2). The worst-case scenario can also
be simulated in the study and can be used to inform stakeholders to take actions to
prevent it from occurring. As a result, vulnerable populations could potentially ben-
efit from enhanced policies targeted at improving health and nutrition. Computer
scientists are not the only ones who can benefit from AI in the development of pre-
dictive models for hunger, health, and population data. Using this method, different
factors can be held constant while other variables can be adjusted to envision
Fig. 2 Bayesian predictive model for ameliorating global malnutrition

what-if scenarios and to forecast at-risk conditions. Preventive measures to avoid

the worst-case scenario could be taken by policymakers as pre-emptive solutions.

Approach of Using AI for Financial Inclusion
According to the World Bank (2020), financial inclusion is critical since it reduces
poverty and boosts economic development. Financial inclusion is especially impor-
tant in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and South America. In these regions,
the people who are most in need of financial inclusion, such as low-income families
and small businesses, have little or no access to banking and financial services.
Financial services are widely available, but certain segments of consumers may not
be aware or educated on using them. Therefore, one of the goals of financial inclu-
sion is to make basic financial products and services, such as money transfers,
remittances, deposits, loans, and insurance, accessible and affordable to poor people
and small and micro businesses. More affordable access to formal financial services
for these groups may enhance their overall well-being and boost economic develop-
ment too.
AI can play a critical role in helping FSPs better understand the expectations of
prospective customers as the need for inclusive financial solutions grows (Fan and
Zhang 2017). AI solutions should help FSPs to place the emphasis on customers,
rather than on the product or the FSPs’ profits. Leveraging the speed and accuracy
with which AI can analyze data, FSPs could better understand the needs of their
potential consumers. Take low-income families as an example. It is imperative that
they have access to affordable finance, as financial inclusion was found to empower
low-income families to better withstand the effects of a downturn in the economy
(Yin et al. 2019). Due to the absence of collaterals from the poor, FSPs may provide
loans or provide other financial services to micro-enterprises and the low-income
groups that regular banks cannot support. FSPs can help by granting these families
access to financial credit so that they can be better prepared for unexpected events.
Individuals who are previously neglected by financial institutions may benefit from
increased investments on education and healthcare to enjoy a higher quality of life.
Small companies might benefit from easier access to financial services like micro
loans and insurance.
To better serve their consumers, FSPs may employ AI to evaluate customer data,
generating projections that offer suggestions to prospective consumers with recom-
mendations to new products and ideas (see Fig. 3). Through the use of technologies
that allow AI and financial analysts to work together to better understand their cus-
tomers and their habits, FSPs may even find new market possibilities. Building on
the FSPs’ deep understanding of existing customer segmentation, it might lead to
more inquiries and theories for future human-inspired AI explorations for novel
ways to serve the customers better. The willingness and readiness of FSPs to build
preconceptions about how effective it should be and how successful it may be is a
Fig. 3 Predictive model for advancing financial inclusion and reducing poverty reduction
crucial component in the future. For example, new data patterns, unexplored chan-
nel possibilities, or new target audiences may be discovered using AI in the data
analysis process. It is possible for human analysts to raise questions that lead to
adjustments in new marketing tactics that better serve prospective customers when
AI can discover incremental efficiencies.
The FSPs that are willing to deliver creative solutions to meet customer needs
should be encouraged to take on a broader degree of corporate change. This means
that FSPs with organization cultures that embrace change and are willing to invest
in their employees and technology will be more likely to empower their teams to be
future-ready and have a higher tendency to lead their businesses toward successful
transformations. As a positive consequence, FSPs and prospective customers may
both benefit from the usage of AI. Nevertheless, despite AI’s potential, humans must
take the lead when it comes to its implementation, rather than letting the technology
dictate their actions.

Approach of Using AI for Improving Food Security
Some of the most critical concerns about sustainability is ensuring food security for
a projected population of over nine billion by 2050 as well as mitigating further
ecological damage (UN-DESA 2015). Additionally, food consumption habits are
shifting fast in tandem with an increase in affluence, especially in most of the
world’s emerging middle class (Vranken et al. 2014). In view of this emerging
trend, it is necessary to comprehend the concept of natural resource scarcity, uncer-
tain agricultural economics, and substantial technological and sociocultural devel-
opments such as diet “Westernization” or climate change. The majority of the
world’s food systems are precarious and susceptible to weather change. According
to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), about a billion
people suffer from the lack of calories and more than two billion lack sufficient
nutrients (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States, International
Fund for Agricultural Development, and World Food Programme 2014). Even
though two billion people are overweight or obese, many of them continue to suffer
from nutritional deficiencies or imbalances (World Health Organization 2014).
Global population growth is just one aspect of the issue. Food preferences have
changed over the years. Most notably, there has been an increase in the demand for
animal products. This may potentially have negative impacts on environmental
health (Kharas 2010).
Apart from health concerns, industrialized food systems may contribute to cli-
mate change through greenhouse gas emissions and threaten biodiversity and food
security (Ingram 2011; Tilman and Clark 2014). Crop output is impacted by climate
change (Lobell et al. 2011). Freshwater supplies have been depleted in various parts
of the globe, mostly as a result of irrigation overuse (Elliott and Elliott 2010).
Increased frequency and severity of harsh weather events, particularly floods and
droughts, may have negative impacts, not only on crop production but also on food
storage, delivery, and safety (Miraglia et al. 2009). These variables will also have an
effect on the cost of food.
In light of the different demands on food systems, the global food system’s exist-
ing and possibly prospective difficulties must be addressed. The challenge is to offer
enough nutrition while minimizing environmental degradation without damaging
the ecosystems that support the livelihoods of the farmers. Climate and other envi-
ronmental elements affecting agricultural systems may have a considerable impact,
eroding the natural resources upon which our food security is based. While improve-
ments in a variety of disciplines such as by increasing yields, animal feed output,
aquaculture production, and labor productivity have contributed to addressing
global food security, they may have a detrimental influence on the environment.
New policy initiatives must be introduced to mitigate environmental impacts while
improving health outcomes and sustaining the food systems’ businesses and liveli-
hoods. To effect change in food systems, dialogue and collaborations between all
players in the food system, including policymakers, farmers, processors, retailers,

and consumers, are essential.
With few resources available and the looming climate crisis, overcoming food
security risks would need a paradigm shift in thinking. Rather than viewing nations
as separate food producers, we must analyze the dynamics affecting the global food
system’s security. At the local, national, and global levels, dialogues and coopera-
tion with participants in the food system, including growers, manufacturers, dis-
tributors, and others, are necessary. While collaborative efforts between businesses
and individuals are critical, prospective methods should prioritize finding synergies
between climate change and environmental concerns, albeit with inescapable trade-
offs that need careful management. To facilitate the shift from business as usual to
achieving greater food security, holistic techniques might be used.
One of the major issues of the twenty-first century is the threat to food security
posed by climate change. Scientific investigations have shown that climate change
has a detrimental influence on food security (Lobell et al. 2011). Although gradual
changes such as rising temperatures and sea levels will have a substantial impact
over the next several decades, farmers must contend with changing weather condi-
tions and the growing frequency and intensity of severe weather events (IPCC
2012). Unpredictability is perhaps the most pernicious concern of climate change.
It is extremely difficult to make weather forecast to high precision, not even for the
next season.
As pressures on the food system increase, food security is becoming a more
pressing issue worldwide. A probabilistic technique based on human-centric artifi-
cial intelligence may be utilized to develop a prediction model based on quantitative
and qualitative data from the Global Food Security Index (GFSI). People who are
not completely schooled in mathematics or computer science will benefit from this
basic probabilistic technique because of its inherent simplicity. Predictive modeling
of the GFSI dataset can be utilized to identify the link between food cost, food avail-
ability, food quality and safety, and the resilience of natural resources in an AI-based
method (see Fig. 4). Computer simulations may be utilized to provide predictions of
favorable and unfavorable environmental circumstances. These future scenarios are
important for informing policymakers and stakeholders from a variety of domain
verticals, allowing them to make choices that are beneficial to global food security.
The predictive model illustrates that increased global food security is compli-
cated by an uncertain supply of new crops and animal illnesses, as well as unfore-
seeable economic, political, climatological, and biological developments. A part of
this could be due to the demand for agricultural products by wealthy countries.
Here, the focus is on the application of agricultural production, notably in terms of
environmental sustainability, economic viability, market involvement, and social
conscience. Additionally, the findings are relevant to the industrial sector, namely,
the agri-food sector in industrialized nations. This model’s findings can potentially
pique the interest of professionals in fields such as consumer behavior, traditional
food consumption, economics, sustainable agricultural production, and agricultural
productivity.
Fig. 4 Predictive analytics of how simulated changes in the multiple parameters could influence
global food security
Agricultural and rural computerization is critical for agriculture’s progress; there

are currently several approaches for developing models in agricultural information
systems. At the European Union (EU) level, the European Commission is urging
member states to seize the opportunities presented by emerging technology and
digitalization in agriculture in order to increase the sector’s production and profit-
ability while simplifying farmers’ daily tasks. Food security on a global scale con-
tinues to be a challenge. Crop yields have decreased in a number of locations
because of water shortages. While agroecological techniques may boost yields,
increasing investment and policy changes have the potential to considerably improve
food security in underdeveloped countries (Rosegrant 2003). Climate change’s
impacts on agricultural output have the potential to have a negative impact on food
security. Unpredictability in short-term supply may jeopardize the sustainability of
whole food systems. Food insecurity is anticipated to be exacerbated by climate
instability and weather changes. As a result, considerable mitigating efforts in favor
of a climate-smart food system are required (Wheeler and von Braun 2013).
To develop more secure, future-proof food protection technologies, food
researchers and policymakers who are not computer scientists may use AI to sup-
port decision-making in order to establish more of such food security systems. The
approach proffered here considerably adds to the existing body of knowledge by
presenting a user-friendly strategy for democratizing AI adoption. It enables inexpe-
rienced users of AI to conduct research analyses utilizing probabilistic reasoning.
Using this strategy in computer models, controlled investigations may be conducted.
Certain variables may be left unchanged, while others can be altered to mimic an
infinite number of possible situations. As a result, it is feasible to simulate what-if
situations. This permits predictive inferences about the circumstances necessary to
optimize positive results and forecasts about the conditions necessary to avoid unfa-
vorable outcomes in global food security from ever arising.
5 Conclusion
AI proponents may opt to employ simulations of different variable combinations to

replicate in silico what could not be readily performed in the actual world via pre-
dictive analyses. However, writing code for AI algorithms or software development
was not always simple. By using the low-code/no-code AI-based approach described
in this chapter, it is possible to simulate numerous scenarios to determine the condi-
tions for the best and worst outcomes of various issues, such as sustainable develop-
ment, alleviation of malnutrition, and the advancement of financial inclusion to
reduce poverty.
Learning about socially beneficial problems may help people of all ages compre-
hend that these issues are global, not localized. It is also an opportunity to persuade
them to advocate more peaceful, tolerant, and inclusive behaviors actively via the
use of conceptual abstractions, problem-solving heuristics, and data analysis.
Analysts using AI for social good might modify the examples in this article using
their own data at the local, national, or global level utilizing user-friendly software
programs like BayesiaLab (developed by Bayesia), GeNIe (developed by
BayesFusion), Netica (developed by Norsys), or Bayes Server (developed by
BayesFusion). As shown in this study, AI may be democratized by making it avail-
able to non-computer-science analysts who are interested in applying it to their own
work. More data explorations with AI and more human-centric insights for guiding
policymakers are possible with AI-augmented thinking. And here is where this dis-
cussion will be closed – not with finality, but as a nod to the profundity of global
development sustainability issues that affect us all.
References
Adler, N.E., T. Boyce, and M.A. Chesney. 1993. Socioeconomic Inequalities in Health: No Easy
Solution. Journal of the American Medical Association 269: 3140–3145.
Bayes, Thomas. 1763. A Letter from the Late Reverend Mr. Thomas Bayes, F. R. S. to John
Canton, M. A. and F. R. S. In The Royal Society, Philosophical Transactions (1683–1775),
vol. 53, 269–271. London: The Royal Society Publishing. https://www.jstor.org/stable/105732.
Briend, André, Claudine Prudhon, Zita Weise Prinzo, Bernadette M.E.G. Daelmans, and John
B. Mason. 2006. Putting the Management of Severe Malnutrition Back on the International
Health Agenda. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 27 (3_suppl3): S3–S6. https://doi.org/10.117
7/15648265060273S301.
Chang, Young-Hyun, and Chang-Bae Ko. 2017. A Study on the Design of Low-Code and No
Code Platform for Mobile Application Development. International Journal of Advanced Smart
Convergence 6 (4): 50–55. https://doi.org/10.7236/IJASC.2017.6.4.7.
Correa, M., C. Bielza, and J. Pamies-Teixeira. 2009. Comparison of Bayesian Networks and
Artificial Neural Networks for Quality Detection in a Machining Process. Expert Systems with
Applications 36 (3): 7270–7279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.09.024.
Cowell, R.G., A.P. Dawid, S.L. Lauritzen, and D.J. Spieglehalter. 1999. Probabilistic Networks and
Expert Systems: Exact Computational Methods for Bayesian Networks. New York: Springer.
Delisle, Hélène F. 2008. Poverty: The Double Burden of Malnutrition in Mothers and the
Intergenerational Impact. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1136 (1): 172–184.
https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1425.026.
Elliott, J.M., and J.A. Elliott. 2010. Temperature Requirements of Atlantic Salmon Salmo Salar,
Brown Trout Salmo Trutta and Arctic Charr Salvelinus Alpinus: Predicting the Effects of
Climate Change. Journal of Fish Biology 77 (8): 1793–1817. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-86
49.2010.02762.x.
Fan, Zhaobin, and Ruohan Zhang. 2017. Financial Inclusion, Entry Barriers, and Entrepreneurship:
Evidence from China. Sustainability 9 (2): 203. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020203.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States, International Fund for Agricultural
Development, and World Food Programme. 2014. The State of Food Insecurity in the World
2014. Strengthening the Enabling Environment for Food Security and Nutrition. http://www.
fao.org/publications/sofi/2014/en/.
‘Global Nutrition Report, 2018’. 2018. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://globalnutri-
tionreport.org/reports/global-nutrition-report-2018/.
Griggs, David, Mark Stafford-Smith, Owen Gaffney, Johan Rockström, Marcus C. Öhman,
Priya Shyamsundar, Will Steffen, Gisbert Glaser, Norichika Kanie, and Ian Noble. 2013.
Sustainable Development Goals for People and Planet. Nature 495 (7441): 305–307. https://
doi.org/10.1038/495305a.
Gupta, Joyeeta, and Courtney Vegelin. 2016. Sustainable Development Goals and Inclusive
Development. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 16 (3):
433–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9323-z.
How, Meng-Leong. 2019. Future-Ready Strategic Oversight of Multiple Artificial Superintelligence-
Enabled Adaptive Learning Systems via Human-Centric Explainable AI-Empowered Predictive
Optimizations of Educational Outcomes. Big Data and Cognitive Computing 3 (3): 46. https://
doi.org/10.3390/bdcc3030046.
How, Meng-Leong, and Yong Jiet Chan. 2020. Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Predictive Insights
for Ameliorating Global Malnutrition: A Human-Centric AI-Thinking Approach. AI 1 (1):
68–91. https://doi.org/10.3390/ai1010004.
How, Meng-Leong, and Wei Loong David Hung. 2019. Harnessing Entropy via Predictive Analytics
to Optimize Outcomes in the Pedagogical System: An Artificial Intelligence-Based Bayesian
Networks Approach. Education Sciences 9 (2): 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020158.
How, Meng-Leong, Yong Jiet Chan, and Sin-Mei Cheah. 2020a. Predictive Insights for Improving
the Resilience of Global Food Security Using Artificial Intelligence. Sustainability 12 (15):
6272. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156272.
How, Meng-Leong, Sin-Mei Cheah, Yong-Jiet Chan, Aik Cheow Khor, and Eunice Mei Ping Say.
2020b. Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Decision Support for Informing Global Sustainable
Development: A Human-Centric AI-Thinking Approach. Information 11 (1): 39. https://doi.
org/10.3390/info11010039.
How, Meng-Leong, Sin-Mei Cheah, Aik Cheow Khor, and Yong Jiet Chan. 2020c. Artificial
Intelligence-Enhanced Predictive Insights for Advancing Financial Inclusion: A H uman-Centric
AI-Thinking Approach. Big Data and Cognitive Computing 4 (2): 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/

bdcc4020008.
Ingram, John. 2011. A Food Systems Approach to Researching Food Security and Its Interactions
with Global Environmental Change. Food Security 3 (4): 417–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12571-011-0149-9.
IPCC. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptation. In A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, 582. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.
ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX_Full_Report.pdf.
Jensen, F.V. 1999. An Introduction to Bayesian Networks. New York: Springer.
Kaplan, David. 2016. Causal Inference with Large-Scale Assessments in Education from a
Bayesian Perspective: A Review and Synthesis. Large-Scale Assessments in Education 4 (1):
7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-016-0022-6.
Kharas, H. 2010. The Emerging Middle Class in Developing Countries. OECD Report No.
1815–1949.
Korb, K.B., and A.E. Nicholson. 2010. Bayesian Artificial Intelligence. London: Chapman &
Hall/CRC.
Levy, Roy. 2016. Advances in Bayesian Modeling in Educational Research. Educational
Psychologist 51 (3–4): 368–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207540.
Lobell, D.B., W. Schlenker, and J. Costa-Roberts. 2011. Climate Trends and Global Crop Production
Since 1980. Science 333 (6042): 616–620. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204531.
Miraglia, M., H.J.P. Marvin, G.A. Kleter, P. Battilani, C. Brera, E. Coni, F. Cubadda, et al. 2009.
Climate Change and Food Safety: An Emerging Issue with Special Focus on Europe. Food and
Chemical Toxicology 47 (5): 1009–1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2009.02.005.
Myers, Raymond H., Douglas C. Montgomery, and Christine M. Anderson-Cook. 2009. Response
Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments. 3rd
ed. Somerset: Wiley.
Pigozzi, Mary Joy. 2006. A UNESCO View of Global Citizenship Education. Educational Review
58 (1): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910500352473.
Prentice, A.M. 2018. The Double Burden of Malnutrition in Countries Passing Through the
Economic Transition. Annals of Nutrition & Metabolism 72 (suppl 3): 47–54. https://doi.
org/10.1159/000487383.
Rosegrant, M.W. 2003. Global Food Security: Challenges and Policies. Science 302 (5652):
1917–1919. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1092958.
Shannon, Claude Elwood. 1953. The Lattice Theory of Information. IRE Professional Group on
Information Theory 1 (1): 105–107. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1953.1188572.
Shrimpton, Roger, and Claudia Rokx. 2012. The Double Burden of Malnutrition: A Review of
Global Evidence. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/27417.
Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (sedac). 2018. Environmental
Performance Index, 2018 Release. https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/
epi-environmental-performance-index-2018/data-download.
Sperotto, Anna, Josè Luis Molina, Silvia Torresan, Andrea Critto, Manuel Pulido-Velazquez, and
Antonio Marcomini. 2019. Water Quality Sustainability Evaluation Under Uncertainty: A
Multi-Scenario Analysis Based on Bayesian Networks. Sustainability 11 (17): 4764. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su11174764.
Taddeo, Mariarosaria, and Luciano Floridi. 2018. How AI Can Be a Force for Good. Science 361
(6404): 751–752. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat5991.
The World Bank. 2020. Financial Inclusion. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/
financialinclusion/overview.
Tilman, David, and Michael Clark. 2014. Global Diets Link Environmental Sustainability and
Human Health. Nature 515 (7528): 518–522. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13959.
Tsamardinos, Ioannis, Constantin F. Aliferis, and Alexander Statnikov. 2003. Time and Sample
Efficient Discovery of Markov Blankets and Direct Causal Relations. In Ninth ACM SIGKDD
International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining – KDD ’03, 673. https://
doi.org/10.1145/956750.956838.
UN-DESA. 2015. World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, Key Findings and Advance
Tables. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/files/key_findings_wpp_2015.pdf.
van de Schoot, Rens, David Kaplan, Jaap Denissen, Jens B. Asendorpf, Franz J. Neyer, and
Marcel A.G. van Aken. 2014. A Gentle Introduction to Bayesian Analysis: Applications to
Developmental Research. Child Development 85 (3): 842–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/
cdev.12169.
Vranken, Liesbet, Tessa Avermaete, Dimitrios Petalios, and Erik Mathijs. 2014. Curbing Global
Meat Consumption: Emerging Evidence of a Second Nutrition Transition. Environmental
Science & Policy 39 (May): 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.02.009.
Wheeler, T., and J. von Braun. 2013. Climate Change Impacts on Global Food Security. Science
341 (6145): 508–513. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239402.
World Bank. 2019. Health Nutrition and Population Statistics. https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/
dataset/health-nutrition-and-population-statistics.
World Health Organization. 2014. Countries Vow to Combat Malnutrition Through Firm Policies
and Actions. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/icn2-nutrition/en/.
Yale University. 2018. Full Dataset of the Environment Performance Index. https://sedac.ciesin.
columbia.edu/data/set/epi-environmental-performance-index-2018/data-download.
Yin, Xuluo, Xu Xuan, Qi Chen, and Jiangang Peng. 2019. The Sustainable Development of
Financial Inclusion: How Can Monetary Policy and Economic Fundamental Interact with It
Effectively? Sustainability 11 (9): 2524. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092524.
Zhang, N., L. Bécares, and T. Chandola. 2016. Patterns and Determinants of Double-Burden
of Malnutrition Among Rural Children: Evidence from China. PLoS One 11 (7): e0158119.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158119.
Ethical AI: The European Approach
to Achieving the SDGs Through AI
Valeria Benedetti del Rio
Abstract The European legislative framework for the development and regulation
of artificial intelligence (AI) is beginning to take shape: the European Commission
published on April 21st, 2021, a proposal for a regulation laying down harmonised
rules on artificial intelligence, and various position papers and non-legislative acts
of other European bodies are paving the way for the EU to take the lead in the devel-
opment of a legislative framework for AI.
As the European Commission clearly summarised, AI should be “a tool for peo-
ple and be a force for good in society with the ultimate aim of increasing human
well-being”. Although not a member of the United Nations, the EU takes part in its
activities and shares the commitments of the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development”. Indeed, the EU works towards the achievement of the 17 Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) both at Union and at member states’ level. It is there-
fore to be expected (as well as desirable) that the new legislative framework will be
supportive of the achievement of the SDGs.
This paper will describe the required characteristics of AI according to existing
European legislative and non-legislative tools and will analyse which elements con-
tribute to the achievement of SDGs and which aspects can, instead, hinder their full
completion. Attention will be given to aspects such as the auditability of AI reason-
ing, equity of potential outcomes, human-centricity and the protection of
human rights.
Keywords Artificial intelligence · Sustainable Development Goals
The European legislative framework for the development and regulation of artificial
intelligence (AI) is beginning to take shape: the European Commission published
on April 21, 2021, a proposal for a regulation laying down harmonised rules on
V. Benedetti del Rio (*)

Baker McKenzie, Milan, Italy
168 V. Benedetti del Rio
artificial intelligence (the AI Regulation Proposal),1 as part of a larger and more

complex AI Strategy2 directed at streamlining research as well as policy options for
AI regulation.
The AI Regulation Proposal is the latest piece of a series of legislative and non-
legislative papers encompassing the growing interest and need, at European Union
(hereafter also EU) level, to identify rules and principles governing the development
and use of AI. The European Union’s aim, indeed, is that of fostering the develop-
ment of a technology that is considered to be disruptive of our ways of living while
at the same time ensuring that the technological advancements do not undermine the
conquests of the EU and of its citizens, notably with respect to protection of rights
and freedoms of people within the EU. On the other hand, and from a preeminently
political point of view, the AI Regulation Proposal is deemed by others as “an
attempt by Brussels to influence the development of AI technology”,3 a way in
which the European Union can influence the direction of technological innovation
within its borders as well as in other regions of the world.
In this paper, we will discuss the characteristics of AI according to the recent
legislative developments in Europe, and a specific focus will be drawn to the analy-
sis of the elements that can contribute to the achievement of the SDGs or, on the
contrary, hinder their full completion.
1 AI Legal Framework in Europe: How Did Europe

Get Here
The current AI Regulation Proposal represents a central piece in the development of

AI in the European Union. While, as a proposal, it is expected to go through a period
of redrafting and changes as part of the standard legislative process in the EU, the
AI Regulation Proposal is interesting and worth analysing already in its current first
draft form. Indeed, it builds on numerous previous acts and opinions, some of which
will be analysed later on, and it encompasses, together with the Communication on
Fostering a European Approach to Artificial Intelligence4 and the Coordinated Plan
1
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised
rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative
acts, available at: EUR-Lex - 52021PC0206 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu), last accessed in
October 2021.
2
Further information on the EU strategy for AI is available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/
en/policies/european-approach-artificial-intelligence, last accessed in October 2021.
3
The EU’s approach to artificial intelligence, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, also
available at: the-eus-approach-to-artificial-intelligence.pdf (iiss.org), last accessed in October 2021.
4
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Fostering a European
approach to Artificial Intelligence, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
ALL/?uri=COM:2021:205:FIN, last accessed in October 2021.
Ethical AI: The European Approach to Achieving the SDGs Through AI 169
with Member States,5 the AI package developed by the European Commission with
the aim of turning the European Commission’s EU digital single market strategy
into practice. In the following paragraphs, we will discuss the main steps that influ-
enced the content of and led the European Commission to the publication of the AI
Regulation Proposal.
It is not possible to analyse the AI Regulation Proposal without considering one
of the earliest documents laying down the need to regulate the growing industry of
AI at EU level, that is, the European Commission Communication on the AI Strategy
for Europe, in April 25, 2018 (AI Strategy).6 As defined by the European Commission,
AI systems are “systems that show intelligent behaviour by analysing their environ-
ment, and performing various tasks with some degree of autonomy to achieve spe-
cific goals”.7 In its AI Strategy, the European Commission explains that AI, although
already present in people’s life, will represent an immense opportunity in the near
future, in terms of market value and jobs, as well as in its ability to disrupt the inter-
nal economic market. Therefore, the European Commission issued the mentioned
AI Strategy, whose objective is that of preparing for the future to come. The AI
Strategy is based on three specific pillars: (i) the opportunity for the EU and its
companies to be ahead of technological developments, thus encouraging invest-
ments and uptake by the public and private sectors; (ii) the need to prepare for
socioeconomic changes brought about by AI, which in turn leads to the need to
modernise education and the labour market in order to prepare for the technological
changes; and (iii) the need to ensure that AI development happens within the bound-
aries of an appropriate ethical and legal framework – which the European
Commission is now providing through its AI Regulation Proposal.
In the brief description of the most influential steps that led to the development
of a legal framework for AI in Europe, a specific mention must be reserved to the
Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI (Guidelines),8 issued by the High-Level
Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (AIHLEG) on April 8, 2019, where the fun-
damental desirable attributes for AI are depicted. As indicated in the Guidelines, AI
should be lawful, ethical and robust, in order for it to be trustworthy and, as such, be
developed, deployed and used lawfully within the European Union. Consequently,
not all AI applications are worthy of development and deployment in the EU, but
only those that, by balancing the technological advancements to the European
5
The Coordinated Plan on Artificial Intelligence 2021 Review is available at: https://digital-
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/coordinated-plan-artificial-intelligence-2021-review, last accessed
in October 2021.
6
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions –
Artificial Intelligence for Europe, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?u
ri=COM%3A2018%3A237%3AFIN, last accessed in October 2021.
7
See Artificial Intelligence for Europe Factsheet, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/
document.cfm?doc_id=51610, last accessed in September 2021.
8
Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI, available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/
ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai, last accessed in October 2021.
values, ensure that AI is trustworthy, therefore sufficiently safe for EU citizens and
companies to benefit from. In addition, to ensure that the characteristics of trustwor-
thy AI can be effectively understood and applied to real cases, the AIHLEG included
a framework within the Guidelines, translating the principles for trustworthy AI into
key requirements and practical examples. These are aimed at offering direction on
how to operationalise the principles of trustworthy AI encompassed in the
Guidelines.
Finally, we move to the AI Regulation Proposal, and we analyse briefly its char-
acteristics. The AI Regulation Proposal was published by the European Commission
on April 21, 2021, and is composed of 85 articles, and it describes the specific sets
of rules that apply to the development and placement on the market of AI systems,
according to their level of risk. According to the proposal, in fact, there may be four
different levels of risks of an AI system: unacceptable, high, limited and minimal
risk. AI that poses an unacceptable risk, by being a threat to people’s rights, their
safety or livelihood, is unlawful according to the proposal; therefore, any applica-
tion or use is forbidden. High-risk AI instead is not only lawful according to the AI
Regulation Proposal but can also be employed in a number of areas, such as educa-
tion, employment, law enforcement and administration of justice; these technolo-
gies shall be subject to strict obligations before they are placed on the market, as
will be further explained below. Moving to the description of limited risk AI, these
AI systems are those that may pose risks of manipulation of individuals, for exam-
ple, because they interact with people, or are used to detect their emotions or gener-
ate content fed to users (such as deep fakes): these technologies are subject to
specific transparency obligations according to the AI Regulation Proposal. Lastly,
minimal risk AI is represented by examples, such as AI-enabled video games or
spam filters; this type of technology poses minimal or no risk to rights and freedoms
of individuals and therefore can be freely used and allowed.
It is worth mentioning that the EU effort benefits from discussions that have been
happening globally, as a number of position papers and non-legislative acts were
issued in the past years, fostering debates and paving the way for the European
Union to take the lead in the development of a legislative framework for the deploy-
ment of AI.9
9
Among these, the White Paper of the European Commission On Artificial Intelligence – A
European approach to excellence and trust, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/
files/commission-white-paper-artificial-intelligence-feb2020_en.pdf, last accessed in October
2021; the Report on AI for Good, Global Summit, held in Geneva in 2017, available at: https://
www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/AI/Documents/Report/AI_for_Good_Global_Summit_Report_2017.pdf,
last accessed in October 2021.
2 The Sustainable Development Goals and Their

Connections with the Development of the AI
Legal Framework
As the European Commission clearly summarised, AI should be “a tool for people

and be a force for good in society with the ultimate aim of increasing human
well-being”.10
Although the European Union is not a member of the United Nations, it takes
part in its activities and shares the commitments of the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development”, adopted in 2015 by the United Nations. The 2030 Agenda was
drafted as a guideline for countries to follow to ensure peace and prosperity for
people and for the planet. It is a plan intended to accompany international actions
for the subsequent 15 years, and it showcases very ambitious objectives. At its
hearth are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be considered as urgent
calls to actions, an endeavour that all signatory countries agreed to bring forward.
Each SDG is further divided into multiple targets, all of which help reach the desired
goal. The targets, 169 in total, also play an operational role, helping countries and
companies find a clearer path to follow for the achievement of the SDGs.
The European Union itself works towards the achievement of the 17 SDGs, both
at Union and at member state level. An example is the so-called “Fit for 55 pack-
age”, a plan for the European Union to cut its carbon emissions and enact its transi-
tion to green energy.11 Considering all of the above, it is therefore to be expected,
and desirable, that the legislative framework proposed by the European Union for
AI will be supportive of the achievement of the SDGs.
In the following paragraphs, we will analyse why AI should be considered an
important tool for the achievement of the SDGs and how it can impact their
accomplishment.
The SDGs range across multiple areas of action, from eradicating poverty and
hunger to ensuring clean energy and developing sustainable cities. The global par-
ticipation and effort that shall be put forward to fulfil the goals is representative of
how challenging the objectives of the United Nations are. And there is more to it,
because governments and companies must also consider that the 17 goals are
strongly intertwined: ending poverty or combating global hunger can only be
achieved when strategies to improve health conditions or access to education and
equal opportunities are also put in place. the above, while also tackling the climate
crisis and ensuring environmental protection and social justice to people in the world.
With the ambitious objectives ahead and the limited time to reach them (as only
one decade is left till the 2030 deadline), it is clear that governments should and
must use all the tools at their disposal, and AI is one of them. AI, in fact, is seen by
some as the most powerful accelerator of SDGs; in the following paragraphs, we
10
AI Regulation Proposal, page 1.
11
Further information is available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-plan-for-a-
green-transition/, last accessed in October 2021.
will describe the main characteristics of AI, in order to understand where the poten-
tial of AI in achieving the SDGs lies.
AI, broadly speaking, can be defined as any technology that is capable of per-
ceiving, predicting, taking decisions, applying logic reasoning and recognising pat-
terns, when applied to a specific situation or issue. It is precisely thanks to these
powerful characteristics that it is seen as a meaningful tool in contributing to achiev-
ing or accelerating the achievement of the SDGs. As an example, the ability to
identify historical patterns and predict highly variable outcomes can be applied to
temperature and weather trends, resulting in the possibility to predict extreme
weather events related to the climate crisis that many regions are experiencing, thus
reducing the vulnerability of impacted communities and ultimately reducing the
impacts on poverty within these countries and villages.12 Another example is the
possibility of using AI to analyse numerous information related to the global food
chain to help diminish food waste, currently impacting ca. 30% of global food
production,13 by improving distribution and ultimately reducing hunger. Indeed,
nowadays, technology is used in fridges to indicate the items that are approaching
their expiry date in order to prevent household waste or to prepare automatic gro-
cery lists when the last piece of product has been used; however, the applications of
AI to the food chain include the possibility to forecast demand and modulate pro-
duction accordingly or quickly source new suppliers in case of shortages.14 Another
capability of AI is that of analysing vast amounts of data and driving to solutions or
logic conclusions: these could inform decision makers and result in an improvement
of social justice. The application of logic reasoning to certain issues, indeed, could
help reduce inequalities in our societies, e.g. with respect to gender discrimination
or accessing education.
Clearly, these are just a few examples of a long list of possibilities. It is therefore
evident that AI is an incredible tool for humanity in relation to the achievement of
the SDGs and, as such, must be put to good use.
Indeed, there are three main characteristics of AI that make this technology a
unique tool in tackling the most pressing issues of our time and ultimately reaching
the SDGs: (i) AI is supported by computer systems that can deploy huge computa-
tional capacity, an asset that can also increase in scale – this means that AI can
analyse an enormous amount of information in a previously unthinkable time frame.
(ii) Given a set of information, AI can identify patterns and infer additional
12
Climavision, a weather forecasting service, is using radar technology, GPS technology and a
proprietary software to improve the timing and accuracy of weather forecasting. Further informa-
tion is available at: https://therisefund.com/news/rise-fund-announces-100-million-strategic-
investment-climavision, last accessed in September 2021. In Japan, instead, technology is used to
provide citizens with timing alerts for natural disasters, like earthquakes. Further information is
available at: https://news.trust.org/item/20210308082452-utr0s/, last accessed in September 2021.
13
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Report on The State of Food and
Agriculture, 2019, available at: http://www.fao.org/state-of-food-agriculture/2019/en/, last
accessed in October 2021.
14
Further information is available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/curtmueller/2021/08/09/
supply-chain-ai-a-food-additive-that-wont-harm-our-health/, last accessed in September 2021.
facts – this logical reasoning is indeed a fundamental characteristic of AI in its

applications towards the achievement of SDGs. (iii) Lastly, AI can foster additional
innovation and technological advancements: in fact, results of AI reasoning can be
considered as the starting point for further AI reasoning, to help solve issues that we
are not yet able to solve.
Clearly, central to all of the characteristics identified above is the capability of AI
to process information, and notably large quantities thereof. Data is at the basis of
any AI application, and attention shall therefore focus on the types and characteris-
tics of the data that are provided to AI as well as on the ways in which AI processes
data – these aspects will be further explained in the paragraphs below, where we
move to also considering the disadvantages that AI puts forward, as a technologi-
cal tool.
As mentioned above, the characteristic of AI that differentiate it from the other
available technologies is that of inferring new facts or conclusions from a given set
of data, by way of identifying existing patterns within the information provided and
applying them into other collections of information and data. This is the result of the
application of machine learning algorithms to AI. Machine learning algorithms, in
fact, are a type of computer algorithm able to improve and learn autonomously
through experience and data – programmers do not determine the conclusions to
which these types of software should get, as in other computer software based on an
input-output logic. With machine learning, it is the software itself that, by applying
a pre-determined model, will get to a conclusion that is unknown to the developers.
The application of machine learning algorithm is at the core of AI systems, and
it is the basis for their ability to learn and make predictions. However, machine
learning algorithm must be trained to develop their learning model, and to do so,
they must be fed with so-called training data. As we mentioned above, data is cen-
tral to any AI application and, necessarily, training data are of paramount impor-
tance in the process of developing AI. The conclusions that AI may be able to reach
depend on the type and characteristics of the training data that are provided to the
machine learning algorithm, and different sets of data applied to the same machine
learning algorithm may result in different outputs.
In order to “use AI for good”, we shall be very mindful of the training data we
use to develop the machine learning models. For example, attention shall be given
to the fact that training data be diverse and neutral – free from gender bias or ethni-
cal connotations. Mimicking human decisions previously taken may also not be
ideal, as this can perpetuate historical or social inequalities. Many studies have been
carried out in this respect and shed light on the risks of biased decisions or presented
discriminatory outcomes of AI systems that were trained on biased data, as this
critique is not really new, and this paper will not delve into them. Relevant to the
purposes of this paper, however, is the fact that, as of today, it is unlikely that the
application of AI reasoning would not perpetuate the conscious or unconscious
biases that our societies are pervaded from, without a clear indication or rule on how
to ensure that training data are diverse, neutral and unbiased. Such perpetuation
would thus result in mistrust over AI technologies and, even worse, in the produc-
tion of distorted results. The clash is, therefore, evident: we cannot hope to exploit
AI to solve gender inequalities and injustices until we are able to ensure that the AI
systems stop propagating or are able to overcome the prejudices and biases of our
society.
Another extremely relevant aspect that shall be considered before entrusting AI
with the task of reaching the United Nations’ SDGs is that of the sustainability of
AI in itself. Some commentators, indeed, have underlined that AI systems, together
with all other aspects of our societies, shall be developed and trained in a way that
is sustainable for our economies and environment. Indeed, the development and
training of AI is highly dependent on great computing power, which results in high
energy demands. The issue becomes also an ethical one, if we turn to consider the
relevant amounts of investments that are necessary for the creation of AI systems, as
well as the time and resources needed to perfect them prior to their practical use.
The critique moved to AI, therefore, is that it absorbs huge economical resources
that could instead finance direct solutions to the completion of the SDGs.
In the following paragraphs, we will consider the AI Regulation Proposal in fur-
ther depth in order to identify the aspects of the proposal that are linked to, or likely
facilitate, reach of the SDGs. Later on, the potential pitfalls of the approach put
forth in the AI Regulation Proposal will be discussed.
3 Characteristics of the AI Regulation Proposal That May

Foster the Achievement of SDGs
As mentioned, the European Commission AI Regulation Proposal is clearly set to

foster the achievement of SDGs by supporting the development of AI in ways that
ensure AI is applied for good.
How does the European Commission envisage to do that?
First of all, by choosing among the legislative instruments that it can dispose of,
to propose the adoption of a regulation. Regulations are legislative acts that, once
approved, become directly applicable in the legislative frameworks of all European
Union member states, without any need for the member states to adopt additional
adequacy measures and thus also without the related time to implement them. This
can be done in those areas, and the single market is one of them, where the European
Union has been given legislative powers by the same member states. The choice of
a regulation, therefore, supports the need to create a uniform framework, a legal
standard of definitions and scope that have a common ground at EU level. The adop-
tion of one single regulation helps avoid fragmentation and improves the chances of
the deployment of a unique single market for AI systems and applications, also
avoiding trans-border jurisdictional issues among the European member states.
Another tool that the European Commission uses to ensure wide application of
its proposal, which is again related to the law drafting technique and already used in
other fundamental pieces of legislation, is that of extending the application of the AI
Regulation Proposal beyond the territorial borders of the European Union. This is
done by including specific provisions that define the circumstances, in which the
rights and freedoms of EU users shall be protected, by applying the European stan-
dards provided by the AI Regulation Proposal, regardless of the fact that said users
or companies are specifically citizen of or based within the European Union bor-
ders. Indeed, the AI Regulation Proposal is set to apply to (i) providers placing AI
systems or AI services in the EU, irrespective of the place where the providers are
based; (ii) users of AI systems or services that are in the EU, regardless of whether
they are citizens of the EU; and (iii) providers and users of AI located outside of the
EU, where the output produced by the AI system is used in the EU.
Simply put, if an AI system goes anywhere near the EU, it will be subject to the
AI Regulation Proposal. And the practical implications for companies are clearly
set. With this approach, in fact, the European Commission wishes to create a set of
rules that is so widely used that it rapidly becomes the legislative standard for that
technology – a pervasive AI regulation can result in the EU being the entity that will
set the rules, definitions and standards for this new technology – resulting in a com-
petitive advantage for EU companies over those of the rest of the world. Indeed, if
the AI systems are developed in the EU, they will benefit from the fact that they
comply with the legislative standard set for the technology since their design phase,
while developers in other regions of the world may need to adapt their products,
which may result in limitations of applications or additional investments.
Moving into the actual text of the AI Regulation Proposal, an aspect that may
foster the achievement of the SDGs is the prohibition of all AI system and services
that create an unacceptable risk for the rights and freedoms of the potential indi-
viduals involved. According to the AI Regulation Proposal, in fact, the prohibited AI
uses listed in Title II include those that contravene EU values, for example, because
they violate fundamental human rights. In excluding the use – but, at a closer look,
also the development, research and study – of AI systems that pose an unacceptable
risk for individuals, the European Union is actually fostering a number of SDGs,
such as goal n. 3, good health and well-being; goal n. 4, quality education; goal n.
5, gender equality; goal n. 10, reduce inequalities; and goal n. 16, peace, justice and
strong institutions. To give an example of the impact of this aspect on the achieve-
ment of the goals now mentioned, consider that the AI Regulation proposal bans
applications of AI that could result in social scoring, i.e. a system according to
which people’s access to jobs or opportunities depend on a number associated to
their previous actions and behaviour – something that clearly contravenes the values
of equality and equal opportunities of our society that are the basis for the achieve-
ment of the mentioned SDGs.
Other aspects relevant to the facilitation of the achievement of the SDGs include
the auditability of AI reasoning, the equity of potential outcomes, human-centricity
and the protection of human rights. These aspects are included in the AI Regulation
Proposal in a number of articles that set the requirements for high-risk AI systems.
In particular, the requirement to train, validate and test AI systems (Article 10 of
the AI Regulation Proposal) is relevant in order to achieve equity of outcomes and
minimise biases or unfair results, thus fostering the fulfilment of goal n. 5, gender
equality – notably with respect to the targets referred to ending all forms of
discrimination against all women and girls as well as ensuring equal opportunities
for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life.
Indeed, although AI software applied to the recruitment process have poorly per-
formed in the past, reportedly discriminating women candidates and favouring men,
AI software applied to the language used in job posting has shown positive results
in reducing gendered language in favour of gender-neutral wording, fostering inclu-
sion and improving diversity of the workforce.15 Goal n. 10, reduced inequalities, is
also impacted by this requirement of the AI Regulation Proposal, in that it offers to
help empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all and to
ensure equal opportunities and reduce inequalities of outcomes. An example of
application is the use of AI systems to detect fake news: as fake news are often used
to inflate stereotypes and discriminate, the use of AI to detect them and subject them
to a further revision prior to publication on social media or other web spaces could
help avoid discriminations to certain groups or ethnicities and improve overall
equality.
In addition, for high-risk AI systems, developers are required to ensure that the
AI systems are designed and developed in a way that makes it possible to collect
automatic recording of events (logs), so that the AI systems’ functioning is some-
how traced and can be looked into or analysed, a posteriori (Article 12 of the AI
Regulation Proposal). This helps ensure that the AI system in question is auditable,
and the reasoning behind inferences or logic conclusions is explicable. Explicability
of results is paramount to goal n. 16, peace, justice and strong institutions, because
it promotes the rule of law and helps develop transparent institution.
Another characteristic that is set to ensure auditability as well as protection of
users’ rights is that of ensuring transparency of AI systems, which translates into
explanations to be provided to users on what the AI systems is able to do and how it
will do it. Notably, the provision of information to users regarding the functioning
and operation of the AI system provided by Article 13 of the AI Regulation Proposal
follows a similar path of transparency obligations that counts many examples among
EU legislative acts, such as the EU Consumer Directive16 and the General Data
Protection Regulation.17 Transparency, therefore, is already a standard requirement
in EU law, and one that is necessary in all AI applications. Indeed, transparency on
15
Artificial Intelligence and Gender Equality, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization Key findings of UNESCO’s Global Dialogue, available at: https://en.unesco.org/sys-
tem/files/artificial_intelligence_and_gender_equality.pdf, last accessed in October 2021.
16
Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019
amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of
the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and modernisation
of Union consumer protection rules, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/2161/oj,
last accessed in October 2021.
17
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on
the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free
movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation),
available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679, last
capabilities and objectives of an AI system, as well as on the information that were

used to train the AI model is necessary to ensure auditability of the AI system. In
addition, transparency on training data is paramount to ensure that people impacted
by AI decisions or reasoning have the possibility to challenge said decisions or
results. Transparency, therefore, is necessary in all technological or AI applications
that do not directly allow users to understand their functioning, including also those
directed at fostering the achievement of the SDGs.
Finally, Article 14 of the AI Regulation Proposal includes the requirement for
high-risk AI system to be equipped with human-machine interface tools, which
allow human oversight of the AI system in use. The provision for human oversight
responds to the need to ensure human centricity of this new technology – a sort of
emergency brake for a technology that may be evolving too fast to ensure it is
always developing within the boundaries of the EU laws. The provision of human
oversight, nonetheless, represents an advantage for the achievement of the SDGs,
and notably goal n. 16, peace, justice and strong institutions, because it helps protect
fundamental rights and freedoms and promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws
and policies.
Following the analysis of the aspects of the AI Regulation Proposal that can fos-
ter the achievement of the SDGs and push our societies in the same direction as to
that traced by the UN 2030 Agenda, we now move to consider, in the coming para-
graph, the aspects for which the AI Regulation Proposal may fall short, and that may
represent obstacles to the achievement of the UN goals.
4 Aspects of the AI Regulation Proposal That May Hinder

the Completion of the SDGs
Following the analysis of the provisions of the AI Regulation Proposal that may
contribute to the achievement of the UN goals, we now turn our attention to the
aspects of the same proposal that may instead represent an obstacle to the achieve-
ment of the same goals.
The first element that we will underline in this regard is an element that was
described in the previous paragraph as an advantage for reaching the SDGs. Human
centricity, in fact, is a requirement that can have a double connotation and has been
identified also as a limit to innovation and an obstacle to the further development of
AI. Indeed, human centricity is linked to the possibility for a human person to look
into the machine decision-making process, in order to review it and possibly correct
it or reverse any wrongdoing. When we consider this, it is clear that human centric-
ity of artificial intelligence may be on one side a paradox, given that it is required to
have a human being understand what humans were not able to do and accomplish in
the first place (building instead an algorithm for them). On the other side, and more
importantly, human centricity may be seen in contrast to the centricity and impor-
tance of other living beings, such as wild plants and animals; as such, human
centricity of AI may be in opposition to the goals n. 14 and 15 of the 2030 Agenda.

In fact, 75% of the surface of our planet is covered by oceans, which represent
almost all the living space of our planet, in terms of volume. Marine and costal bio-
diversity is the source of living for over three billion people, and the marine system
is responsible for the absorption of 40% of the carbon dioxide we produce, while
plants produce the oxygen that we breathe and represent the food that we eat, being
the foundation to life on earth.18 Protecting life below water and life on land, there-
fore, requires putting other living beings’ interest at the centre of our research and
efforts; human centricity of AI systems therefore is not only in direct contrast to that
but also capable of jeopardising the advancements on the completion of these goals.
Another issue that must be also considered when talking about AI and the
requirements put forth by the AI Regulation Proposal is that auditability of the sys-
tem, with precise logs and descriptions of the reasoning that led from an informa-
tion to the inference of the following fact, is highly unlikely. This is due to the fact
that auditable AI means explicable and reverse-engineerable AI, which in turns is in
plain contrast with the protection of proprietary rights over the same AI system. The
intellectual property rights behind an AI system are expected to be among the most
relevant assets of AI – having to install a black box that explains all reasoning per-
formed by AI may represent a huge risk for that AI, when audited, of explaining the
connections between its decisions and revealing elements of the technology or the
machine learning algorithm that would need, from a business perspective, a sound
protection. Imposing an explainable AI, therefore, represents a risk for stakeholders
of losing their investment and assets, therefore possibly being detrimental to the
development of the full potential of AI technology.
In this paragraph, instead, we will move to consider some aspects that the AI
Regulation Proposal failed to address and which may represent, on one hand, a
missed opportunity for the European Commission and, on the other hand, an obsta-
cle to the achievement of the SDGs. Among the missed topics, there is the one
related to lack of reference to energy efficiency or carbon emission budgets: a limi-
tation on the emissions that can be put into the atmosphere in the whole process of
projecting, designing and realising an AI system is indeed advisable at best, taking
into consideration the climate crisis that we are living in. As mentioned, in fact, the
objectives of the UN 2030 Agenda are quite ambitious; however, the timeframe to
reach them is shortening: if we wish to find help in the use of innovative technolo-
gies to achieve our collective goals, we shall at least responsibly consider only those
technologies that are sustainable in themselves. What is here intended is that by not
fixing a carbon budget to AI solutions, the EU is generally supporting all AI systems
and applications equally, without differentiating among those sustainably developed
and those that, instead, may have benefitted of larger budgets and emissions.
However, and again sustainability arguments turn quickly into ethics ones, our
approach to AI should be responsible: considering, on one side, the relevant time
18
Further information is available at: https://in.one.un.org/page/sustainable-development-goals/
sdg-14/, last accessed in October 2021.
that is necessary from design to production phase for AI and the tight timeframe that
separates us to 2030 and, on the other side, the huge investments that AI requires to
become applicable and usable in practice, isn’t it necessary to support, also from a
financial point of view, only those solutions that would not worsen the environmen-
tal situation that we are living in? This indeed would also be linked to the achieve-
ment of the goal n. 13, the goal to take urgent action to combat climate change and
its impacts, something that the proposal clearly missed to address. The reasoning
behind the need to develop only sustainable AI is a mandatory one, if we also con-
sider that we are now seeing great investments in this new technology. The technol-
ogy and the infrastructure that it is going to be built is new and will be used for many
years; therefore, it is of paramount importance to avoid, in this phase, unnecessary
lock-ins in high-energy-consuming asset, or otherwise we will be stuck with non-
efficient devices and technologies for years to come, something that could imply
that AI have a negative impact on the achievement of goal n. 13.
Lastly, AI is seen, by some commentators, as one of the biggest threats facing
humanity, a sort of tech-gone-wrong scenario that some filmmakers have already
depicted.19 The comprehensible doubts accompanying the deployment of any new
technology, indeed, move from sentiment of distrust over something that appears as
non-controllable, to fear of jobs loss, due to the automation of human activities or
resorting to machines to perform non-basic human tasks such as decision-making.
Privacy concerns may also add on the mentioned worries, and while the AI
Regulation Proposal seems to address the trust issues by resorting to transparency
and audit requirements as well as the ban on unacceptable AI, the risk of job loss
remains a pressing issue that can represent a downside to the development of AI.20
Although the focus of the AI Regulation Proposal is that of regulating the develop-
ment and deployment of AI, it is mandatory for governments to consider also the
risks that the development of AI may have on the job market. Indeed, automation of
jobs impacts different sectors in different ways, and the subsequent displacement
that follows job loss may have a greater impact in lower-income communities,
where there may be a minor specialization of the workforce – which in turn may
increase poverty and social inequalities of the same communities and areas – in
clear contrast to the UN goals n. 1 and 10.
5 Conclusions
This paper described the characteristics of the AI Regulation Proposal and analysed
the advantages and disadvantages that can come from its implementation to the
achievement of the UN SDGs.
19
See further at: From rogue AI to nuclear war, the 10 biggest threats facing civilisation | WIRED
UK, last accessed in October 2021.
20
According to a 2019 McKinsey Global Institute report, available here the-future-of-work-in-
america-full-report.pdf (wordpress.com), 39 million full-time jobs could be automated by 2030.
Although it is necessary for regulators to intervene with legislative frameworks

and boundaries, when applying the law to technology, it is of paramount importance
that any regulation does not block innovation. Indeed, in this respect, the AI
Regulation Proposal manages to enter the AI field at a stage where this technology
is still in development, and, in this context, the proposal correctly limits its impact
to defining the ground rules to help the AI technology to thrive while at the same
time safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the people involved. This approach
allows the market to have its course while at the same time drawing some lines
when foreseeable negative impacts are anticipated, in order to avoid undesirable
consequences or harmful scenarios from happening. In addition, the method identi-
fied in the AI Regulation Proposal, to rely on a risk-based classification in order to
determine the different set of rules that may apply to a certain AI system, allows the
proposed text to survive technological changes and developments and become
future proof.
The real challenge of the AI Regulation Proposal is that of aspiring to become the
worldwide legal standard for AI technologies. Indeed, while considering the posi-
tive impact that the EU legal standard may have on individuals, in that it strongly
protects rights and freedoms of people when they interact with AI, it is also neces-
sary to consider its limits: On one side, it is possible that other, more permissive,
legislative frameworks may facilitate the development of more pervasive AI tech-
nologies in other parts of the world. Once a technology is in use, it is very difficult
that regulatory efforts manage to limit it or confine its use. On the other side, as this
paper depicted, the AI Regulation Proposal, in its first draft, presents pitfalls that
hinder the development of our society in the only sustainable way currently possi-
ble. However, it is unlikely for a worldwide legal framework to be contrary to public
policy; therefore, the objective of the upcoming legislative process that will take the
current proposal to its final version is to address most, if not all, of them.
References
AI for Good, Global Summit Report. 2017. Available at: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/AI/

Documents/Report/AI_for_Good_Global_Summit_Report_2017.pdf. Last accessed in
October 2021.
Aldwairi, M., and A. Alwahedi. 2018. Detecting Fake News in Social Media Networks. Procedia
Computer Science 141: 215–222. Also available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S1877050918318210. Last accessed in October 2021.
Artificial Intelligence and Gender Equality, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization Key findings of UNESCO’s Global Dialogue. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/
system/files/artificial_intelligence_and_gender_equality.pdf. Last accessed in October 2021.
Chui, M., R. Chung, and A. Van Heteren. Using AI to Help Achieve Sustainable Development
Goals. United Nations Development Programme. Available at: https://www.undp.org/blog/
using-ai-help-achieve-sustainable-development-goals. Last accessed in October 2021.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Fostering a European
approach to Artificial Intelligence. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/

ALL/?uri=COM:2021:205:FIN. Last accessed in October 2021.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions –
Artificial Intelligence for Europe. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=COM%3A2018%3A237%3AFIN. Last accessed in October 2021.
Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019
amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/
EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and
modernisation of Union consumer protection rules. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/
dir/2019/2161/oj. Last accessed in October 2021.
Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, Artificial Intelligence High Level Expert Group. 2019.
Available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai.
Last accessed in October 2021.
Manyika, J., J. Silberg, and B. Presten. What Do We Do About the Biases in AI? Harvard Business
Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2019/10/what-do-we-do-about-the-biases-in-ai.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised
rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legis-
lative acts. Available at: EUR-Lex-52021PC0206-EN-EUR-Lex(europa.eu). Last accessed in
October 2021.
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on
the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the
free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection
Regulation). Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%
3A32016R0679. Last accessed in October 2021.
The EU’s Approach to Artificial Intelligence, The International Institute for Strategic Studies,
Volume 27 Comment 24, September 2021. Also available at: the-eus-approach-to-artificial-
intelligence.pdf (iiss.org). Last accessed in October 2021.
The Future of Work in America, McKinsey Global Institute, Report. 2019. Available here the-
future-of-work-in-america-full-report.pdf (wordpress.com).
The State of Food and Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Report. 2019. Available at: http://www.fao.org/state-of-food-agriculture/2019/en/. Last
Van Wynsberghe, A. 2021. Sustainable AI: AI for Sustainability and the Sustainability of AI. AI and
Ethics 1: 213–218. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00043-6. Last accessed in
October 2021.
White Paper of the European Commission On Artificial Intelligence – A European Approach to
Excellence and Trust. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/commission-
white-paper-artificial-intelligence-feb2020_en.pdf. Last accessed in October 2021.
AI as a SusTech Solution: Enabling AI
and Other 4IR Technologies to Drive
Sustainable Development Through Value
Chains
Matthew Stephenson, Iza Lejarraga, Kira Matus, Yacob Mulugetta,

Masaru Yarime, and James Zhan
Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI), along with other new technologies of the
Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), can help drive sustainable development through
what can be called ‘SusTech’ solutions. But how can these be supported by
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of
their institutions. The authors would like to thank several anonymous peer reviewers as well as
Sean Doherty, Kimberley Botwright, and Jimena Sotelo, all from the World Economic Forum, for
their helpful comments. Lead and corresponding author: Matthew Stephenson.
M. Stephenson (*)
Head, Investment Policy and Practice, Geneva, Switzerland
I. Lejarraga
Economic Counsellor, Development Centre, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), Paris, France
K. Matus
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST),
Y. Mulugetta
Energy and Development Policy, University College London (UCL), London, UK
M. Yarime
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST),
J. Zhan
Investment and Enterprise, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD), Geneva, Switzerland
184 M. Stephenson et al.
governments, adopted by firms (especially in managing value chains), and encour-

aged by users? This chapter proposes a three-part solution: (1) The G20 should
create a Sustainable Technology Board (modelled after the Financial Stability
Board) as a mechanism for coordination, cooperation, and scaling of SusTech solu-
tions; (2) governments can consider adopting policy and regulatory measures to
help firms integrate SusTech solutions into value chains, including drawing from 11
concrete, actionable options; and (3) examples of how firms have already adopted
SusTech solutions illustrate opportunity and inspire replication.
Keywords AI · New technologies · Fourth Industrial Revolution · Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs) · Sustainable Technology Board · SusTech · SusTech
solutions
1 Challenge
There is wide consensus that scaling technology can help achieve sustainable devel-
opment (Herweijer et al. 2020, p. 7; Diaz Anadon et al. 2016, p. 1; Habanik et al.
2019, p. 48; World Bank Group 2016, pp. 303–20).1 One of the main mechanisms is
through greener, safer, and more inclusive value chains enabled by technology that
can increase efficiency, transparency, resilience, and responsibility (Sotelo and Fan
2020, p. 13) (Fig. 1).
This was already important before COVID-19, but the urgency has grown: value
chains need to become more resilient to future pandemics; societies need to address
inequality that has been exacerbated; and economies need to raise productivity to
generate growth that can address record-high levels of debt.
Adopting new technologies in ways that lead to sustainable development can
help achieve these goals, what can be called ‘SusTech solutions’. SusTech is defined
as the use of new technologies that help achieve Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs), either directly or indirectly. Directly would mean the technology is adopted
to achieve a certain goal (e.g. lowering carbon use), while indirectly would mean the
technology is adopted to achieve business efficiency but also provides additional
benefits (e.g. lowering carbon use). The word ‘solutions’ is added to denote that
these new technologies help governments and firms achieve their objectives.
SusTech solutions are focused on technologies of the Fourth Industrial
Revolution, given the new opportunities that these afford for sustainable develop-
ment. Survey data has found that five specific technologies may have the most
1
Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies could have a high impact across 10 of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), and 70% of the 169 targets underpinning the SDGs could be enabled
by these technologies.
AI as a SusTech Solution: Enabling AI and Other 4IR Technologies to Drive Sustainable… 185
transformational impact: artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, Internet of things,

automation, and virtual reality.2
To provide one example, AI and automation can be used to help grow the circular
economy. Smart recycling robots should soon be able to efficiently dismantle, anal-
yse, and categorize electronic waste – ‘de-manufacturing’ and ‘re-manufacturing’
electronic objects and components – and in so doing both tap into an estimated US$
62 billion electronic waste industry and help safeguard the planet (Enel 2020).
Additional examples of existing SusTech solutions are presented in Part III of this
chapter.
So how can SusTech solutions be enabled and integrated into value chains in
practice?
This requires tackling three interconnected challenges:
(1) Governance failures as new technologies are leaping forward in terms of their
economic and social importance, but policy and regulatory frameworks are not
keeping up and may not be fit for purpose. The speed and direction of techno-
logical change, as well as expanding knowledge gap between public and private
sectors, challenge the use of traditional regulatory approaches. Governance fail-
ures can take place both at the domestic level and also at the international level,
given the interconnectedness of economic and technological systems.
Even worse, technology could actually undermine people and planet if nega-
tive impacts (e.g. on privacy, competition, climate, etc.) are not addressed. New
technologies are, in and of themselves, neutral and require accompanying
frameworks to avoid distortions and help orient them in support of soci-
etal goals.3
(2) Market and coordination failure is taking place at the global level because
advances in technology that can drive sustainable development (i.e. SusTech)
represent a form of public good that suffers from a collective-action problem as
well as a complex system that suffers from coordination challenges; together,
this is resulting in underinvestment and undersupply and calls for mechanisms
to address collective-action and cooperation challenges.
(3) A growing desire to reconfigure value chains through SusTech solutions to
increase resilience and sustainability, but lack of widely known practical,
actionable steps to do so. Both public and private actors wish to seize on reform
appetite following COVID-19 to move from global value chains (GVCs) to
Sustainable GVCs (SGVCs), and SusTech provides one of the keys to do so
(Schmidt et al. 2019).
This chapter will be structured in three parts to provide solutions to these three
challenges.
2
Sotelo and Fan (2020) and WBG (2016) identify the same list, with the only difference being
virtual reality and automation, and so the chapter will address both.
3
Acemoglu et al. (2020) show that the tax system has favoured automation over labour as labour is
heavily taxed while capital is not, creating incentives for firms to over-invest in automation as a
labour-saving technology, undermining societal goals.
2 Solution
2.1 Create a Sustainable Technology Board
The G20 should create a Sustainable Technology Board (STB) as a mechanism

for coordination, cooperation, and scaling of SusTech solutions. An STB is
called for given the transformative potential of new technologies and to address the
concern, confusion, and competition that is increasingly underlying their integra-
tion. There is an opportunity to pre-empt escalating techno-nationalism – and
address societal concerns over techno-equity and integrity – through a mechanism
that convenes key actors, provides analysis and options, and promotes cooperation
over competition. As such, the platform could be mandated to help shape technol-
ogy in a way that advances SDG-oriented value chains through active policies that
guide technology in these directions. A first step in this direction is the decision by
the G7 to convene a ‘Future Tech Forum’, together with the OECD, in September
2021, and on which the STB could build (G7 Communiqué 2021)4 (Fig. 1).
Concretely, the STB would be structured to deliver three core functions.
Sustainable Technology Board
Technologies for SusTech

AI
Barriers to SusTech adoption

Blockchain
Data
IoT Infrastructure
Solutions to barriers
Skills
Data trusts TechFin Sustainability impact
Automation and drones Investment
Homomorphic Encryption Investment incentives assessments
Typology of personal data Non-equity modes of inv Equivalency agreements
Regulation
Rightskilling Performance-based regs Living Labs/Reg Sandboxes
Coordination
Augmented/VR
Fig. 1 SusTech solutions snapshot
4
It is also worth noting that the USA and EU at the same time established a Trade and Technology
Council, with the aim of addressing bilaterally similar issues, demonstrating the growing impor-
tance of collaboration on these issues. See European Commission, ‘EU-US launch Trade and
Technology Council to lead values-based global digital transformation’, 15 June 2021, https://ec.
europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_2990.
2.1.1 Provide a Platform for Cooperation
A platform where policymakers, firms, and experts, and civil society come
together to identify needs, share both concerns and opportunities, and trans-
parently chart out ways to integrate SusTech solutions in both regulatory
frameworks and corporate strategies.
Such a platform would provide a space for cooperation between national tech-
nology bodies. It would also provide a space for those at the frontier of technology
innovation – especially in the private sector – to flag risks and opportunities so they
can be addressed or seized.5
It would also create a mechanism for outreach, engagement, and inclusion of
less-developed economies and smaller firms to help develop and adopt SusTech
solutions.
There is a growing risk of splintering into a two-speed world – the technology-
rich and the technology-poor – and so actively collaborating on sharing SusTech
solutions would be important to use technology as a societal integrator rather than
allowing it to develop into a societal cleaver. One specific outreach mechanism
could be through a Pioneer Program, whereby technology authorities in different
jurisdictions would sign up to trial SusTech policies and measures, backed by the
technical support of STB partners to help with capacity development.6
2.1.2 Generate Analysis and Options
To inform platform-based cooperation, the STB would generate analysis and

provide options. The analysis could include developments in new technologies,
risks and opportunities that these generate, and good practices for how authorities
and firms have addressed risks and seized opportunities. The emphasis would be on
practical policy options and measures that could be adopted. Analysis could also
track progress on goals, and whether policies and measures were effective in achiev-
ing their intended aims regarding technology adoption and sustainable develop-
ment. Together, such analysis and options would support dissemination, replication,
and scaling of SusTech solutions, both scaling up and scaling out.
This process can be understood as taking place across three levels: an insti-
tutional level (creating an STB), an evaluative level (‘What technologies work in
practice and how?’), and an operational level (‘To support the roll-out technologies
that work, let’s adopt these policies and measures…’). Options for policies and
measures will be outlined in Part II (Fig 2).
5
For instance, the sustainable value chains have been developed for key commodities through
cooperation and commitments between key actors (e.g. in Sustainable Palm Oil), and a similar
approach would be taken for technologies rather than commodities.
6
For instance, a Pioneer Program has been adopted by the G20 Global Smart Cities Alliance to trial
smart city policies. See https://globalsmartcitiesalliance.org/?page_id=714.
• Sustainable
Institutional Level Technology Board
•Artificial intelligence
•Blockchain
Evaluative Level •Internet of Things
•Automation and drones
•Augmented/Virtual Reality
•Data trusts; Homomorphic encryption; Typology

of personal data; Rightskilling; TechFin;
Operational Level Investment incentives; Non-equity modes of

investment; Performance-based regulation;
Sustainability impact assessments; Equivalency
agreements; Living Labs/Regulatory Sandboxes
Fig. 2 Three levels: institutional, evaluative, and operational
2.1.3 Develop Standards and Guidelines
In addition, one of the main goals of the STB would be to develop standards
and guidelines on new technologies to facilitate their sustainable adoption.
Standards and guidelines would apply to both business and national authorities.
They would thus facilitate cooperation between economies, allowing for interoper-
ability, alignment, and well-function systems. They would also at once create larger
markets through interoperability as well as provide regulatory clarity, predictability,
and stability. Conversely, the lack of standards and guidelines creates systemic risk
in terms of governance, corporate returns, and consumer protection.
Standards can come in various types, including in their scope and detail. For
instance, standards could apply across technologies or be specific to a certain tech-
nology.7 In addition, standard setting for SusTech could begin with general princi-
ples, evolve into more detailed practices, and finally generate specific guidelines.
Starting with ‘soft’ or voluntary standards could overcome the challenge of
competition between different economic systems or visions. A valid concern is
how economies with very different approaches to technology governance can fruit-
fully cooperate through an STB. The answer is to first develop soft standards that
are adopted on a voluntary basis. Perhaps after a critical mass of economies adopt a
soft standard – because it proves useful in practice – it can be viewed as a ‘firm’
standard, one that is widely accepted but still not a binding ‘hard’ standard. In prac-
tice ‘firm’ standards may often be sufficient for planning and collaboration between
7
See, for instance, World Economic Forum, ‘Internet of Things Guidelines for Sustainability’.
January 2018, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/IoTGuidelinesforSustainability.pdf.
economies and firms. Where relevant, the STB can build on or adopt ISO work on
sustainability standards.8
2.1.4 Precedent and Practice
There is strong G20 precedent for creating an STB. The STB could be very simi-
lar to – and modelled after – the Financial Stability Board (FSB)9, which was estab-
lished following the G20 summit in London in 2009. A more recent example
includes the G20 Global Smart Cities Alliance on Technology Governance, which
was established following the G20 Summit in Osaka in 2019.10 The G20 Global
Smart Cities Alliance, which provides a platform for cooperation on smart cities,
recently published a Global Policy Roadmap that outlines good practices and pro-
poses certain principles to integrate technology into ‘ethical, smart cities’.11 Both of
these examples provide compelling precedents to establish an STB.
How do the FSB and Smart Cities Alliance function, and how could this be
replicated? FSB policy options and standards are not required to be adopted by
members, but rather encouraged through dialogue, discussion, and reports to the
G20. In other words, national authorities retain policy autonomy. The Smart Cities
Alliance is also voluntary, with the World Economic Forum acting as a secretariat.
The STB could operate similarly, developing voluntary standards and principles and
being housed, for instance, in the World Economic Forum’s Centre for the Fourth
Industrial Revolution, whose mission is to help maximize the benefits of technology
while avoiding potential risks.12 At the same time, G7 leaders have recently sup-
ported mandatory disclosure of climate-related financial information based on the
FSB’s Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework. A
similar mechanism of information disclosure could also be considered for issues
related to SusTech.
8
See ISO, ‘Sustainability standards from ISO’, https://iso26000.info/sustainability-standards-from-iso/.
9
The FSB is organized around three standing committees, namely, a Standing Committee on
Supervisory and Regulatory Cooperation, a Standing Committee on Assessment of Vulnerabilities,
and a Standing Committee on Standards Implementation. These align with the proposed functions
of an STB, which could be organized similarly. See Financial Stability Board, ‘About the FSB’,
https://www.fsb.org/about/#mandate.
10
See G20 Global Smart Cities Alliance, ‘About the Alliance’, https://globalsmartcitiesalliance.
org/?page_id=107. The World Economic Forum serves as the secretariat of the Alliance.
11
These include principles on (a) equity, inclusivity, and social impact, (b) openness and interoper-
ability, (c) security and resilience, (d) privacy and transparency, and (e) operational and financial
sustainability, which could inspire the development of STB principles. See https://globalsmartci-
tiesalliance.org/?page_id=90.
12
See Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, https://www.weforum.org/centre-
for-the-fourth-industrial-revolution.
2.2 Barriers and Solutions to SusTech Adoption
There are six main types of barriers to wider adoption of SusTech. These
include (1) data, (2) infrastructure, (3) skills, (4) finance and investment, (5) regula-
tion, and (6) coordination (Fig. 3).
Data is the lifeblood of technology systems. Just as humans need blood to
course through their bodies to function, technologies need data to flow both within
and between systems to function. This, in turn, requires sufficient volume, trust, and
interoperability. While data policy is increasingly tense and disputed – with differ-
ing visions between G20 economies – this paper proposes three data ‘landing zones’
to break impasse through finding common ground.
If data is the lifeblood, infrastructure is the highway. One can take ‘secondary
roads’ but it will take longer, you may hit a pothole, and you may never find your
destination on account of poor signage. Much the same way, fit-for-purpose infra-
structure is needed if firms are to adopt SusTech solutions, as otherwise they will be
Data
Coordination Infrastructure
Barriers to
SusTech
adoption
Regulation Skills
Investment
Fig. 3 Barriers to SusTech adoption

limited to ‘secondary-road technologies’. This includes, inter alia, infrastructure for

transportation, communication, connectivity, processing, and storage.
Skills, in turn, are the new passport, and right-skilling the new visa.
Worryingly, large swathes of society risk being locked out of growing global mar-
kets by not having needed digital skills. While policymakers talk about upskilling
and reskilling, the goal may actually be right-skilling: matching skills to technolo-
gies (Ross et al. 2018).
Building infrastructure and growing skills require investment and finance
in technologies, or TechFin. Investment needs are enormous, but the capital is
there. However, investments are not taking place to scale as outdated regulatory
frameworks are creating undue risks. This calls for updating regulatory frameworks
to create ‘digital-friendly investment climates’ (Stephenson 2020). It also calls for
public-private, innovative financing mechanism targeted at technology, what could
be called ‘technology finance’ or TechFin. This may be especially needed for
SusTech rollout in developing markets.
None of this can effectively take place absent coordination and regulation.
These are, one might say, the ‘field’ and ‘rules’ that allow for collaboration to take
place both directly on technology and on the other barriers, namely, data, infrastruc-
ture, skills, and investment. Absent effective coordination and agreed regulation,
one can find oneself in a situation where one team thinks the game is football and
the other rugby and picks up the ball to run, or one team is on field A and the other
waiting on field B to play the game. While this may sound humorous, at present the
lack of clear and agreed regulation – coupled with the lack of mechanisms of coor-
dination – means countries and firms run the risk of doing just that.
Policymakers may thus wish to consider targeted policies and measures to
address these barriers and enable SusTech solutions. The reason is that these
technologies are new, and therefore policy and regulatory frameworks have not kept
up. While some technologies may require specific policies and measures (i.e. verti-
cal in nature), this chapter will propose 11 policies and measures that apply across
all technologies (i.e. horizontal in nature). In addition to helping lay the groundwork
for the adoption of technologies, the added benefit of considering horizontal inter-
ventions is that new technologies work in bundles and so require to be enabled
together (UNCTAD 2017, p. 176; Sotelo and Fan 2020, p. 4) (Fig. 4).
2.2.1 Establish ‘Data Trusts’ to Share Data Safely and Securely
Data trusts are legal structures that serve as a fiduciary (or third-party steward) for
data provided by members of the trust and govern the data’s use. Data trusts thus
allow organisations to give some control over their data to a new institution so that
data can be shared and aggregated (Open Data Institute 2019; WEF and McKinsey
2019). Large-scale aggregation may be essential to accrue full benefits from
SusTech, given that data present increasing returns to scale for SusTech solutions.
Two-thirds of firms across all industries report they would be willing to share data
Data trusts
Living Labs
Homomorphic
and
encryption for
Regulatory
data sharing
Sandboxes
Equivalency
Typology of
agreements
personal data
on standards
Solutions
to SusTech
Sustainability
impact
asssesments
adoption Rightskilling
Performance-
based TechFin
regulation
Non-equity
Investment
modes of
incentives
investment
Fig. 4 Solutions to SusTech adoption
with the right conditions, and data trusts can help provide those conditions
(Zarkadakis 2020).
2.2.2 Use Homomorphic Encryption to Share Data Safely and Securely
Homomorphic encryption can also be used to share data, either as a complement or

an alternative to data trusts. Homomorphic encryption makes it possible to analyse
encrypted data without revealing the data’s content. It thus allows for sharing data
safely and securely, whether the data is sensitive or personal or whether it is being
shared with a jurisdiction that has a different standard of data protection and pri-
vacy. This opens up the increasing returns from data flow and aggregation even
absent agreement on data policy (Zafrir 2020). It also opens up access to the 80% of
datasets that are currently private, whether in the hands of governments or firms.13
2.2.3 Adopt a Typology for Data to Facilitate Management and Sharing
The challenge to data policy to enable SusTech solutions relates to personal data,
not corporate data. Firms can manage corporate data for commercial ends if the data
are allowed to flow between jurisdictions, but individuals often do not have the same
oversight and control. As a result, governments have sought to protect personal data,
but this has also erected barriers to its use. The solution lies in differentiating data
by type and adopting differential regulation: firm data (f-data), official personal data
(o-data), privy personal data (p-data), and collective personal data (c-data).14
f-data is owned and controlled by firms, who can choose to share it or not
(e.g. patterns in sales in different markets).
o-data is created and authenticated by the state but controlled by people (e.g.
a passport number).
c-data is shared within a well-defined group governed by certain rules (e.g.
aggregated data from banking cooperatives).
p-data is created by people, either directly through first-order p-data (e.g.
photos put online) or indirectly through second-order p-data (e.g. location
data from smartphones).
f-data should be allowed to flow freely both within and across economies, fol-
lowing corporate agreements between parties (WEF 2020). o-data, c-data, and
p-data should be in the hands of people, who can decide whether to share it (and on
what terms) or not. o-data would likely not be shared; c-data would be shared to
achieve certain objectives; and p-data might be shared depending on compensation
(financial or non-financial, such as services).
2.2.4 Ensure Right-Skilling Programmes Match Skills Supply

to Skills Demand
One of the greatest limiting factors to adopting SusTech solutions is skills. The
basket of skills needed to understand, adopt, apply, and develop technologies is
quickly changing and risks leaving people or economies behind. The solution lies in
13
World Wide Web Foundation, Open Data Barometer, September 2018 in Herweijer et al. (2020),
footnote 91.
14
Snower et al. (2020) provide the typology for personal data.
public-private dialogue and training to match skills supplied to skilled demanded.

First, firms need to be asked what skills are needed to enable SusTech; second, gov-
ernment need work with universities and other centres of excellence to help develop
those skills15; third, mechanisms need to be created for this process to continue,
monitoring and adapting as technologies evolve.
2.2.5 Develop Innovative Technology Finance (TechFin) Instruments
Both the development and adoption of SusTech require resources, and so policy-
makers may wish to support technology finance (TechFin) to help with uptake and
rollout. Specific instruments could include blended finance, government-backed
incubators and accelerators, patient or concessional capital, funds and prizes, and
public procurement (Herweijer et al. 2020, p. 33).
2.2.6 Orient Investment Incentives to Encourage the Uptake

of SusTech Solutions
Governments can use a number of investment incentives to encourage capital to

flow into SusTech solutions. These include both financial and non-financial incen-
tives. Financial incentives could include tax breaks, grants, or subsidies. Non-
financial incentives could include faster approvals, lighter or expedited regulatory
review, or operational support to encourage the uptake of SusTech solutions.
2.2.7 Incorporate Non-equity Modes or Strategic Partnerships

in Domestic and International Policy Frameworks
Evidence suggests that non-equity modes of investment (NEMs) or strategic part-

nerships have been growing in importance and are prevalent in the digital economy
and high-tech investments.16 Strategic partnerships are much more flexible than
FDI, allowing firms to respond quickly to fast-paced technical changes and evolving
market conditions. They are also increasingly deployed as a means to obtain rapid
access to knowledge, technology, and intangible assets. Despite their importance,
NEMs are not adequately covered in many domestic and international policy frame-
works, resulting in lower predictability for contract-based corporate relationships.
Policymakers may wish to ensure that regulatory frameworks are updated to support
cross-border NEMs that can drive SusTech solutions.
15
Apprenticeships may be particularly useful, whereby part of the training is done by and within
companies, in co-operation with universities, and with support or other incentive from government
for firms that invest in such training.
16
This finding can be seen through a new dataset covering about 27,000 corporate relationships of
147 multinational enterprises (MNEs) in 13 sectors. See Andrenelli et al. (2019).
2.2.8 Use Performance-Based Regulation to Balance Flexibility

with Oversight
The challenge with supporting SusTech is to get the balance right between flexibil-
ity and oversight. This allows for new technologies to bloom while also protecting
societies from untoward outcomes. One innovative solution is to apply performance-
based regulation (PBR). The idea is to focus on desired, measurable outcomes,
rather than prescriptive processes, techniques, or procedures (United States Nuclear
Regulatory Commission 2021). In essence, the goal is specified, but not the path to
get there, which is left up to firms, allowing regulatory objectives to be met in cre-
ative and effective ways. PBR – which represents a close cousin to the increasingly
popular risk-based regulation (WBG 2017) – can be flanked by periodic reviews to
ensure it is working as desired.
2.2.9 Use Sustainability Impact Assessments
Another way to support SusTech is through the use of Sustainability Impact

Assessments (SIAs) by both regulatory agencies and firms. SIAs – which again
represent a close cousin to the increasingly popular Regulatory Impact Assessments
(RIAs) (WBG n.d.) – can be used to proactively identify potential benefits and
drawbacks across technologies. This provides more transparency about impacts and
necessary trade-offs, since generally technologies involve making decisions about
trade-offs across societal objectives. SIA can therefore help to develop and adopt
mitigation measures to any negative impact, including displaced workers, anticom-
petitive practices, etc.
2.2.10 Ensure Equivalency Agreements on Standards and Certifications
As a first step to facilitating cooperation on SusTech adoption – and absent the

development of standards by an STB – G20 policymakers may wish to consider
equivalency agreements on SusTech-related standards and certifications. This could
significantly support SusTech efforts by creating larger markets for investment and
operations. Standards and certifications increase predictability and quality, provid-
ing confidence to consumers and firms, yet history shows they are often developed
in an uncoordinated and inconsistent manner between jurisdictions, forming a sig-
nificant barrier to cross-border commercial activities.
2.2.11 Build Living Labs and (International) Regulatory Sandboxes
A final way to allow regulatory flexibility and innovation for SusTech solutions to
bloom – while also safeguarding societal interests – is the use of living labs and
regulatory sandboxes. These create the space for a more permissive testing of
SusTech applications, while circumscribing potential risk. Regulatory sandboxes

can thus generate learning on SusTech solutions through experimentation. Living
labs and regulatory sandboxes need to be both flexible to accommodate the uncer-
tainties of innovation, and precise enough to impose society’s values on emerging
innovation (Yarime 2020). Moreover, international regulatory sandboxes can be
created so that experiments and collaboration can be conducted jointly across juris-
dictions, creating more legitimacy for setting shared global standards and guidelines.
2.3 Examples of SusTech in Action
How have firms already integrated SusTech solutions into operations to increase
profits, resilience, and sustainability? Real-life examples illustrate how SusTech
solutions are already being successfully adopted, providing models for how further
SusTech solutions roll out in practice. Such rollout is currently taking place in a
piecemeal, disjointed way, motivating creation of an STB (Part I) and adoption of
enabling policies and measures (Part II) so that more economies and more firms can
benefit from SusTech solutions.
This section (Part III) will focus on five of the technologies that have been identi-
fied as having amongst the most long-term transformational impact through recent
analysis and surveys: artificial intelligence, blockchain, Internet of things, automa-
tion, and virtual reality (Fig. 5).17
2.3.1 Artificial Intelligence
AI could increase global gross domestic product (GDP) by $15.7 trillion by 2030,
according to PwC estimates (PwC 2017). Some firms are already starting to seize
this potential, but there is a scope for huge scaleup.
For instance, AI can be used for financial inclusion, especially to provide finan-
cial services to those that do not have a formal credit history. Machine-learning
algorithms, such as those of Aire, can use mobile phone activity, and other digital
footprints, to evaluate creditworthiness and help provide financial services to new
market segments. Similarly, Eastnets’ approach is to use AI to detect financial
fraud. Another example is ClearMetal, which has adopted AI for predictive logis-
tics and supply chain management that allows it to predict transit delays and opti-
mize routes, saving shipping costs, increasing timing accuracy, and avoiding
unnecessary backups and backlogs (Nguyen 2020; ClearMetal 2017). AI can also
help for sustainable energy, for instance Moxia is using AI-powered energy
17
Sotelo and Fan (2020) and WBG (2016) identify the same list, with the only difference being
virtual reality and automation, and so the chapter will address both.
Artificial
intelligence
Augmented
/virtual Blockchain
reality Top
SusTech
technologies
Automation Internet of
and drones things
Fig. 5 Top SusTech technologies
management software that allows smart energy storage through batteries and shar-
ing through grids (George 2020).
2.3.2 Blockchain
Blockchain holds perhaps the most transformative potential in terms of technolo-

gy’s impact on sustainable development. For instance, blockchain technology can
help ensure inputs are sourced responsibly (e.g. diamonds through Everledger),
sustainably (e.g. tuna through Provenance), and efficiently (e.g. creating mecha-
nisms for peer-to-peer exchange of excess solar energy through Powerledger)
(Adams et al. 2018, p. 134; Ahl et al. 2020). Another example is in the Democratic
People’s Republic of the Congo (DRC), where Cobalt Blockchain is tracing the
provenance of cobalt to allow for identification of any malpractice along the supply
chain. Rather than eschewing sourcing from the DRC because of the risk of support-
ing human rights violations, manufacturers now have the confidence to purchase
from the DRC, increasing sustainable development (Herweijer et al. 2020,
pp. 21–22).
2.3.3 Internet of Things
The Internet of things (IoT) is also foreseen to be a game changer for both growth
and sustainability. In terms of growth, estimates suggest it could add $14 trillion in
economic value to the global economy by 2030 (WEF 2018, p. 3); in terms of sus-
tainability, IoT can dramatically improve efficiency and outcomes in, inter alia,
agriculture, transportation, energy, and smart cities.
For instance, BBVA has installed 50,000 sensors in its Madrid headquarters to
detect and collect data about the status of the facilities, environmental conditions,
and the presence of people, allowing it to save 5,766,731 kWh on energy. This rep-
resents savings of 12–15% compared to before and is equivalent to the energy of
about 1,900 households per annum (BBVA 2019).
2.3.4 Automation and Drones
Automation holds both risks and rewards for sustainable development, a clear case
where Sustainability Impact Assessments can help evaluate impact. On the one
hand, workers are likely to be displaced; on the other, automation in, inter alia, fac-
tories, transportation, health, and agriculture can both increase worker safety and
allow them to move to more value-addition work, if retrained and right-skilled,
while also saving cost, energy, and time through optimization. Estimates in the USA
predict such efficiency improvement may result in reduced carbon dioxide and
harmful particulates by up to 60% (Bösch et al. 2018).
For instance, drone delivery by firms such as Amazon, DHL, Google, and UPS
is expected to improve corporate carbon footprint, with one study in Thailand find-
ing that the ‘online shopping system using drone delivery is one of the most envi-
ronmentally friendly transportation options throughout a wide range of scenarios’
(Koiwanit 2018a, b).
2.3.5 Augmented and Virtual Reality
Augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) holds the potential to transform everything
from education and healthcare to mining and tourism. The risk is that currently only
a small segment of the world’s population is benefitting from AR/VR, prompting
the need for targeted support of this particular SusTech solution (Bogdan-
Martin 2021).
For instance, firms like Proprio, ImmersiveTouch, TrueVision, and EchoPixel
have been using AR/VR to improve the quality and accuracy of surgery (Daley
2021). In addition, lockdowns brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic have cata-
pulted interest in learning through AR/VR, such as that being provided by Google,
Microsoft, and ARVR Academy (Immersive Learning News 2020).
3 Conclusion
SusTech solutions have the potential to transform our world. AI, along with other
new technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, can help achieve the SDGs.
However, this will require key enablers.
First, a new Sustainable Technology Board (STB) can provide a platform for
cooperation on accelerating uptake and growing impact from SusTech, including
AI. It can provide analysis and outreach to both increase and widen the potential
benefits of new technologies for development – while mitigating and addressing any
negative effects – including through standards and policy recommendations.
Second, certain policies and measures can help address barriers to the adoption
of SusTech solutions. This chapter sets out 11 horizontal actions policymakers
might wish to consider to enable new technologies. The STB can further refine and
add to these as part of its mandate. The STB can also facilitate legitimate policy
experimentation to test new approaches to both stimulate and govern new
technologies.
Third, there is the realization that firms are already starting to adopt SusTech
solutions, demonstrated through concrete examples in AI, in addition to blockchain,
IoT, automation, and AR/VR. However, this is happening in a piecemeal and dis-
jointed way; public and private sectors can work together to accelerate, deepen, and
scale this trend.
The G20 should act now. G20 economies stand most to gain from SusTech solu-
tions in the short term as they have the absorptive capacity to integrate new tech-
nologies. Yet because of the public good nature of implementing SusTech solutions,
cooperation will ‘increase the pie’, and the G20 has the critical mass to create effec-
tive cooperation mechanisms. If this happens, it will lead to benefits for non-G20
economies, both through knowledge spillovers and opportunities for non-G20 econ-
omies to plug into value chains in new ways, including through new types of digital
services exports, benefiting all economies.
References
Acemoglu, Daron, Andrea Manera, and Pascual Restrepo. 2020. Taxes, Automation, and the Future
of Labor. MIT Research Brief. October 2020. https://workofthefuture.mit.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2020/10/2020-Research-Brief-Acemoglu-Manera-Restrepo.pdf.
Adams, Richard, Beth Kewell, and Glenn Parry. 2018. Blockchain for Good? Digital
Ledger Technology and Sustainable Development Goals. In Handbook of Sustainability
and Social Science Research, 127–140. Cham: Springer. https://link.springer.com/
chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-67122-2_7.
Ahl, Amanda, Masaru Yarime, Mika Goto, Shauhrat Chopra, Manoj Kumar Nallapaneni,
Kenji Tanaka, and Daishi Sagawa. 2020. Exploring Blockchain for the Energy Transition:
Opportunities and Challenges Based on a Case Study in Japan. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 117: 109488. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
S1364032119306963.
Anadon, Laura Diaz, Gabriel Chan, Alicia G. Harley, Kira Matus, Suerie Moon, Sharmila
L. Murthy, and William C. Clark. 2016. Making Technological Innovation Work for Sustainable
Development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (35): 9682–9690. https://
www.pnas.org/content/113/35/9682.short.
Andrenelli, Andrea, Iza Lejárraga, Sébastien Miroudot, and Letizia Montinari. 2019. Micro-
Evidence on Corporate Relationships in Global Value Chains: The Role of Trade, FDI
and Strategic Partnerships. OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 227. https://doi.org/10.1787/
f6225ffb-en.
BBVA. 2019. Artificial Intelligence and Green Algorithms Contribute to Improved Energy Efficiency
at BBVA Headquarters. 9 October 2019. https://www.bbva.com/en/artificial-intelligence-and-
green-algorithms-contribute-to-improved-energy-efficiency-at-bbva-headquarters/
Bogdan-Martin, Doreen. 2021. What taking VR and AR Mainstream Means for Sustainable
Development. World Economic Forum. 17 February 2021. https://www.weforum.org/
agenda/2021/02/virtual-reality-augmented-reality-sustainable-development/
Bösch, Patrick M., Felix Becker, Henrik Becker, and Kay W. Axhausen. 2018. Cost-Based
Analysis of Autonomous Mobility Services. Transport Policy 64: 76–91. https://www.science-
direct.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X17300811?via%3Dihub.
Carbis Bay G7 Summit Communiqué. 2021. Our Shared Agenda for Global Action to Build Back
Better. 13 June 2021. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/50361/carbis-bay-g7-summit-
communique.pdf
ClearMetal. 2017. Artificial Intelligence in Supply Chain: Solve the Data Problem First.
12 December 2017. https://www.clearmetal.com/news/2017-12-22-2018-outlook-the-
year-global-shipping-embraces-ai
Daley, Sam. 2021. 10 Companies Using VR and Augmented Reality to Improve Surgery. 22 March
2021. https://builtin.com/healthcare-technology/augmented-virtual-reality-surgery
Enel. 2020. Waste Not, Want Not: The Smart Recycling Robot. 15 September 2020. https://www.
enel.com/company/stories/articles/2020/09/artificial-intelligence-circular-economy
European Commission. 2021. EU-US Launch Trade and Technology Council to Lead Values-Based
Global Digital Transformation. 15 June 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/
detail/en/IP_21_2990
George, Sarah. 2020. World’s Largest Network of AI-Enabled Residential Batteries
Doubles in Size. Edie Newsroom. 22 July 2020. https://www.edie.net/news/8/
World-s-largest-network-of-AI-enabled-residential-batteries-doubles-in-size/
Habánik, Jozef, Adriana Grenčíková, and Karol Krajčo. 2019. The Impact of New Technology on
Sustainable Development. Engineering Economics 30 (1): 41–49. https://inzeko.ktu.lt/index.
php/EE/article/view/20776.
Immersive Learning News. 2020. 3 Companies Working on Education in VR and
AR. 20 March, 2020. https://www.immersivelearning.news/2020/03/20/3-companies-working-
on-education-in-vr-and-ar/
Financial Stability Board. About the FSB. https://www.fsb.org/about/#mandate
G20 Global Smart Cities Alliance. “About the Alliance”. https://globalsmartcitiesalliance.
org/?page_id=107.
Herweijer, C., B. Combes, A. Gawel, A.M. Engtoft Larsen, M. Davies, J. Wrigley, and M. Donnelly.
2020. Unlocking technology for the Global Goals. World Economic Forum and PwC. January
2020. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Unlocking_Technology_for_the_Global_Goals.pdf.
ISO. Sustainability Standards From ISO. https://iso26000.info/sustainability-standards-from-iso/
Koiwanit, Jarotwan. 2018a. Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Drone Delivery on an Online
Shopping System. Advances in Climate Change Research 9 (3): 201–207. https://www.scien-
cedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927818300261.
Koiwanit, J. 2018b. Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Drone Delivery on an Online Shopping
System. Advances in Climate Change Research 9 (3): 201–207. https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S1674927818300261.
Nguyen, Kaley. 2020. ClearMetal's Data-First Approach & AI Adoption: How It Matters?
21 January 2020. EnvZone. https://www.envzone.com/logistics-and-supply-chain/
clearmetals-data-first-approach-ai-adoption-how-it-matters/.
Open Data Institute. 2019. Data Trusts: Lessons From Three Pilots (Report). 15 April 2019. https://
theodi.org/article/odi-data-trusts-report/
PwC. 2017. Sizing the Prize: PwC’s Global Artificial Intelligence Study: Exploiting the AI
Revolution. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/data-and-analytics/publications/artificial-
intelligence-study.html
Ross, Emily, Bill Schaninger, and Emily Seng Yue. 2018. Right-Skilling For Your Future Workforce.
McKinsey & Company. 20 August 2018. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/
organization/our-insights/the-organization-blog/right-skilling-for-your-future-workforce
Schmidt, M., D. Giovannucci, D. Palekhov, and B. Hansmann, eds. 2019. Sustainable Global
Value Chains. Springer. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319148762.
Snower, Dennis, Paul Twomey, and Maria Farrell. 2020. Revisiting Digital Governance.
Social Macroeconomics Working Paper Series (SM-WP-2020-003). Oxford University.
September 2020. https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020-10/SM-WP-2020-003%20
Revisiting%20digital%20governance_0.pdf
Sotelo, Jimena, and Ziyang Fan. 2020. Mapping TradeTech: Trade in the Fourth Industrial
Revolution. World Economic Forum. December 2020. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_
Mapping_TradeTech_2020.pdf
Stephenson, Matthew. 2020. Digital FDI: Policies, Regulations and Measures to Attract FDI in
the Digital Economy. World Economic Forum White Paper. September 2020. https://www.
weforum.org/whitepapers/digital-fdi-policies-regulations-and-measures-to-attract-fdi-in-the-
digital-economy
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). 2017. World Investment Report
2017: Investment and the Digital Economy. https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/publications/174/
world-investment-report-2017%2D%2D-investment-and-the-digital-economy
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2021. Performance-Based Regulation. 9 March,
2021. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/performance-based-regulation.html
World Bank Group. 2016. World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends. World Bank
Publications. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016.
_______. 2013. Introducing a risk-based approach to regulate businesses How to build a risk
matrix to classify enterprises or activities. Investment Climate 90754, September 2013. https://
documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/102431468152704305/pdf/907540BRI0Box30d0appr
oach0Sept02013.pdf
_______. Global Indicators of Regulatory Governance: Worldwide Practices of Regulatory
Impact Assessments. http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/905611520284525814/
Global-Indicators-of-Regulatory-Governance-Worldwide-Practices-of-Regulatory-Impact-
Assessments.pdf
World Economic Forum. 2018. Internet of Things Guidelines for Sustainability. January 2018, p.3.
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/IoTGuidelinesforSustainability.pdf.
_______. 2020. Data Free Flow with Trust (DFFT): Paths Towards Free and Trusted Data
Flows. May 2020. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Paths_Towards_Free_and_Trusted_
Data%20_Flows_2020.pdf
World Economic Forum and McKinsey. 2019. Data Collaboration for the Common Good Enabling
Trust and Innovation Through Public-Private Partnerships. April 2019. http://www3.weforum.
org/docs/WEF_Data_Collaboration_for_the_Common_Good.pdf
World Wide Web Foundation. 2018. Open Data Barometer. September 2018.
Yarime, Masaru. 2020. Governing Data-Driven Innovation for Sustainability: Opportunities and
Challenges of Regulatory Sandboxes for Smart Cities. in Artificial Intelligence for Social
Good, Published by Keio University and the Association of Pacific Rim Universities. https://
apru.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/layout_v3_web_page.pdf
Zafrir, Nadav. 2020. Beyond Trust: Why We Need A Paradigm Shift in Data-Sharing.
World Economic Forum. 17 January 2020. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/
new-paradigm-data-sharing
Zarkadakis, George. 2020. ‘Data Trusts’ Could Be the Key to Better AI. Harvard Business Review.
10 November 2020. https://hbr.org/2020/11/data-trusts-could-be-the-key-to-better-ai
AI for Sustainable Finance: Governance
Mechanisms for Institutional and Societal
Approaches
Sep Pashang and Olaf Weber
Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) for sustainable finance has been increasingly
employed over the past several years to address the sustainable development goals
(SDGs). Two major approaches have emerged: institutional and societal AI for sus-
tainable finance. Broadly described, institutional AI for sustainable finance is used
for activities such as environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing, while
societal AI for sustainable finance is used to support underbanked and unbanked
individuals through financial inclusion initiatives. Despite the growing reliance on
such digital tools, particularly during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
pandemic, governance mechanisms and regulatory frameworks remain fragmented
and underutilized or inhibit progress toward the 17 UN SDGs. While major propos-
als and reports were released by standard-setting and regulatory bodies leading up
to 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic indeed caused major setbacks to adoption and
implementation, which in turn have also resulted in inconclusive data and lessons
learned. As the global community begins to navigate out of the pandemic, policy
makers, through multilateral and cross-sector agreements, are looking to renew gov-
ernance mechanisms that mitigate new and pre-existing risks while cultivating sus-
tainability and facilitating innovation.
Keywords Artificial intelligence · Sustainable finance · Fintech · ESG · Financial

inclusion · Governance
S. Pashang (*) · O. Weber

School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Canada
204 S. Pashang and O. Weber
1 Introduction
Artificial intelligence (AI) in financial services has become integrated into our
global social fabric, particularly with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic in
2020. While such financial technology (fintech) applications have undoubtedly
changed the way money is spent, borrowed, invested and saved—at various junc-
tures of the financial system, they are increasingly being used to address sustainable
development, which will be referred to in this paper as “AI for sustainable finance”.
Fintech emerged after the 2008 global financial crash (GFC) and has rapidly
evolved into a commercial and mainstream service offering since 2018. The
Financial Stability Board (FSB) defines fintech as “technologically enabled innova-
tion in financial services that could result in new business models, applications,
processes or products with an associated material effect on financial markets and
institutions and the provision of financial services” (FSB 2021). Put simply, fintech
includes digital innovations used for financial services.
While the evolution of fintech began with start-ups addressing intermediation
gaps left by the formal banking sector (Aaron et al. 2017), today starts-ups, chal-
lenger digital banks, government agencies and incumbent banks use various subsets
of AI (i.e., machine learning, natural language processing, deep learning) to also
address socially responsible investing (SRI) and financial inclusion—in hopes of
progressing the 17 SDGs approved by the United Nations.
Despite the growing governance action and literature regarding AI and how it
relates to formal financial systems (globally and regionally), governance mecha-
nisms for AI for sustainable finance need to be urgently identified as studies are rare
and the lack of agreed measures could contribute to fragmentation in future policy
outcomes. To bring together a coherent conceptualization of AI for sustainable
finance, this chapter develops a definition: AI that embeds social and environmental
inclusion, ethics and collaboration into its design, development and implementation
to accelerate sustainable development.
Only in the past few years have cross-sector partnerships and multilateral discus-
sions between central banks, standard-setting bodies and policy makers inspired
governance frameworks and recommendations (e.g. the Bali Fintech Agenda and
the Maya Declaration on Financial Inclusion) that advance people and planet, and
not solely profit. On the one hand, AI for sustainable finance has been shown to
unlock or enable efficiencies for various actors or industries, while on the other, it
has been shown to inhibit progress toward sustainable development by presenting
new or existing unintended consequences. Without governance and regulatory
frameworks in place, such innovations may threaten the viability of modern finan-
cial systems and the livelihoods of the actors that contribute to them (Castilla-Rubio
et al. 2016).
With this in mind, the ongoing debate surrounding sustainable development
challenges (e.g. energy consumption, e-waste, privacy and predatory issues, gender
bias and racialization) related to regulations, ethics and particularly governance is
mounting. In response, intergovernmental organizations, central banks and
AI for Sustainable Finance: Governance Mechanisms for Institutional and Societal… 205
regulatory bodies have had to carefully, yet expeditiously, adapt to the evolving
ecosystem—mitigating risk through robust regulatory measures while cultivating
sustainability and facilitating innovation. To unpack these implications, this chapter
addresses AI for sustainable finance using the following structure.
The first section examines the SDGs and how AI for sustainable finance can
achieve them. Technology utilization to improve social and environmental out-
comes during the Fourth Industrial Revolution is well under way. In only a few
years, AI for sustainable finance has evolved from historical data analysis to real-
time information and recently to predictive modelling (International
Telecommunication Union [ITU] 2018).
The second section considers two vantage points related to AI for sustainable
finance. The first observes AI for sustainable finance at the institutional level, in the
context of ESG investing. Specifically, in developed markets, firms use subsets of
AI and big data (e.g. stock prices, ESG risk data, public sentiment) to provide inves-
tors with sustainability insights. The second vantage point relates to AI for sustain-
able finance at the societal level, in the context of digital financial inclusion.
Emerging and frontier market actors have integrated adjacent industries to bridge
the gap between unbanked (and underbanked) populations and the financial system,
serving vulnerable individuals and small businesses that historically have not had
equitable access to financial and/or technology resources and literacy (Cantú and
Ulloa 2020).
The third section discusses the COVID-19 pandemic and the unique challenges
and opportunities it has presented in the context of AI for sustainable finance. For
instance, in late March 2020, the Bank of Canada (BoC) suggested that “During this
time of heightened public health measures intended to limit the transmission of
COVID-19, some consumers and businesses are choosing not to use cash to limit
potential exposure” (Carmichael 2020, para. 6). Current trends indicate an increased
acceptance of digital tools and digital identity, and consideration of digital curren-
cies (Carmichael 2020; Cheung n.d.). As nations and institutions look to AI for
sustainable finance to address pandemic-related circumstances, the SDGs could
serve as a guidepost to accelerate innovation while confronting practices that may
be exclusionary or pose unintentional consequences.
2 AI and the SDGs
This paper adopts the following definition of sustainable development by David

Griggs et al. (2013, 2): “Development that meets the needs of the present while
safeguarding earth’s life-support system, on which the welfare of current and future
generations depends”. In 2015, the United Nations introduced 17 SDGs as a frame-
work to address global challenges such as poverty, climate change and numerous
inequities by 2030 (United Nations 2019a). When the SDGs were agreed to, it was
stated that data and technology could unlock the potential not only to monitor prog-
ress toward sustainable development as once traditionally used but also, more
importantly, to actively contribute through evidence-based policies and programs

(UN Global Pulse and GSMA 2017). This was followed in 2016 by the likes of the
Group of Twenty (G20), which included sustainable digital finance as one of its
2030 work streams, and the United Nations Environment Programme, which pub-
lished recommendations in its Fintech and Sustainable Development: Assessing the
Implications report (Macchiavello and Siri 2020; Blakstad and Allen 2018).
Meeting the SDGs will require action on several technological fronts, including
better understanding the potential of digital innovations. For AI for sustainable
finance to support sustainable development, it must focus not only on the perceived
benefits as imagined by those who develop them but also how the technologies (and
associated benefits) are accessible, are useful and can be integrated into local con-
texts that vary economically, politically and culturally (especially by the poorest or
most vulnerable) (Arthur 2009). On the one hand, AI for sustainable finance has
been utilized to improve the quality of life for developing nations and enable greater
access to basic human amenities for their populations. On the other hand, AI for
sustainable finance is often not regulated by conventional financial regulators and
might have negative effects on financial markets or exclude those without access.
Historically, innovation has been promoted through public and private mecha-
nisms, operated only by a few developed countries and international bodies (Nelson
1993). These efforts have succeeded, to some degree, in fulfilling global sustain-
ability needs but have fallen short of advancing sustainable development (Juma and
Yee-Cheong 2005; InterAcademy Council 2004; Harvard Kennedy School n.d.).
Addressing these gaps requires effective cross-sector partnerships between munici-
pal, federal and international actors and input from end users (recipients and local
stakeholders) contributing to the process. Within the global innovation system, the
difficulties of utilizing technological innovation for sustainable development have
been addressed in a variety of ways, such as through financing, formation of research
networks, setting priorities, international aid and trade agreements and action
research feedback loops connecting end users and innovators (Harvard Kennedy
School n.d.). To some degree, these interventions have altered institutional norms
and configurations over the past few years, yet they are poorly described in the lit-
erature. Little is known beyond their respective fields, making it difficult to contrib-
ute to enhancing AI for sustainable finance in practice and scholarly discourse.
3 The Promise of AI for Sustainable Finance
3.1 A Brief History
The GFC of 2008 and its aftermath caused enormous turmoil and led to an extended
period of low growth and instability across the international political economy
(Castilla-Rubio et al. 2016). This crisis originated from exorbitant risk-taking by
US banks on subprime mortgages, which burst the housing bubble, triggered the
collapse of the banking sector and led to an unprecedented “credit crunch” around
the world (Flammer and Ioannou 2020). As a result, numerous governance and reg-
ulatory measures infused by the G20 were implemented to reshape the global finan-
cial system. After the devastating impacts the GFC had on people and planet,
investors and stakeholders turned to sustainable finance (e.g. ESG investing) in
efforts to interrogate nonfinancial criteria related to climate change, environmental
disasters, poor corporate governance and investment risks each of these posed
(Townsend 2020). At the same time, financial inclusion initiatives were established
by G20 leaders (e.g. the Financial Inclusion Experts Group, Global Partnership for
Financial Inclusion [GPFI]); central banks of emerging markets (e.g. the Alliance
for Financial Inclusion and its release of the Maya Declaration on Financial
Inclusion); and the United Nations (e.g. the Task Force on Digital Financing of the
Sustainable Development Goals), to name a few (Arner et al. 2020).
While AI for sustainable finance is relatively new in the literature and in practice,
technology utilization to improve social and environmental outcomes is not. Upon
reviewing the literature, information and communications technology (ICT) was
first introduced in the literature (for example, Cornish 1982; Melody and Mansell
1986; Nooteboom 1992) in the 1980s to represent technologies such as telephone
networks, computer networks, television and radio. In the sustainable development
field, the most widely used reference to technology is “ICT for development”, a
term that was also used in 2000 for the UN Millennium Development Goals (ITU
2015). With advancements and variance in digital innovations, the term ICT no
longer accurately describes the field as it once did and thus must be revisited. The
authors posit that “ICT for good” serves as an umbrella term for newer fields such
as AI for good (Clopath et al. 2019; Rolnick et al. 2019; Taddeo and Floridi 2018);
fintech for good (Arner et al. 2020; Alexander et al. 2017); blockchain for good
(Sylvester 2019; Kewell et al. 2017; Aganaba-Jeanty et al. 2017); and big data for
good (Marsden and Wilkinson 2018; Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership
2014; Maaroof 2015), in both academic and industry journals. To this end, stake-
holders must be cautiously optimistic about advancing AI’s remarkable depth,
power and speed in their efforts to accelerate sustainable development.
3.2 Recent Governance Responses
Cross-sector partnerships and multilateral efforts by bodies such as the FSB, Bank
for International Settlements, the G20, Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) and numerous UN agencies have made some progress.
Figure 1 depicts a process recently introduced by the World Bank Group, offering
guidance on regulatory approaches toward fintech (World Bank Group 2020).
Despite such efforts, global adoption and implementation to integrate such frame-
works are largely missing (Fay 2019). This trend is also evident across developed
markets such as Canada and other G20 members (e.g. China, the European Union,
India and the United States), where regulatory bodies are still working to investigate
and implement modifications.
Fig. 1 Process to identify regulatory approaches and policy responses toward fintech. (Source:
World Bank Group 2020)
In 2018, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) launched
the Bali Fintech Agenda paper, which proposed a framework on high-level fintech
issues that countries should consider in their domestic policy discussions (World
Bank Group and IMF 2018). The report presented 12 policy proposals that cover
issues related to enabling fintech, ensuring financial sector resilience, addressing
risks, financial inclusion and promoting international cooperation. While global
cross-sector agreements such as the Bali Fintech Agenda have offered blueprints for
AI for sustainable finance, it is not clear where member nations stand relative to
these proposals presently. The pervasiveness of the COVID-19 pandemic has since
caused reprioritization and major setbacks to such governance implementations,
which in turn have resulted in inconclusive data and lessons learned. The last known
review of country responses was carried out by the World Bank and IMF in 2019
(IMF 2019). Findings from the report included three major themes. First, common
in nearly all regions are critical infrastructural and regulatory gaps (ibid.). Second,
monitoring of entities and activities is still confined within conventional regulatory
parameters (ibid.). Third, legal frameworks to address issues are widely missing
(ibid.). In its regional overview, the report highlighted the following: Africa has
experienced rapid growth of mobile money in a push toward increased financial
inclusion, but differences in regulatory approaches are noticeable and reactive to the
pace of change (ibid.). East Asia has made significant advances in all major aspects
of fintech. To keep up with this pace, regulators have established fintech units and
regulatory “sandboxes” to respond to various risks (e.g. consumer and investor pro-
tection concerns, financial stability and integrity) (ibid.). Entities utilize fintech
sandboxes to test solutions in controlled environments to expose potential risks and

benefits. Figure 2 shows the various phases of a fintech sandbox life cycle (World
Bank Group 2020). The European market is also rapidly growing but is distributed
unevenly. While the European Union has enforced two major regulations (the
General Data Privacy Regulation and Payments Services Directive 2) in 2018, their
implications are yet to be seen. In West Asia, Central Asia and North Africa, adop-
tion and progress are gradual, with concentration of activities only in a few coun-
tries and sectors. Regulatory responses vary widely across the Americas, with Latin
American and Caribbean nations still trailing behind Canada and the United States.
While some major AI for sustainable finance advancements have been made in
Canada, very little has followed with regard to governance and policy, and agreed-
upon frameworks around their functions are ad hoc, incomplete and insufficient. In
Canada, there is no single federal or provincial regulatory body that has jurisdiction
Fig. 2 A typical sandbox life cycle. (Source: World Bank Group 2020. Note: AML/CFT anti-
money laundering/combatting the financing of terrorism)
over such firms. Instead, regulations are dependent on the types of services being
offered by such firms (Global Legal Group 2021). This notion of light-touch regula-
tion has some concerned about bad behaviour by firms, renewing fears of a GFC-
like scenario (Fay 2019). Canadian regulators such as the Department of Finance,
the Competition Bureau and some provincial agencies have made attempts at devel-
oping a fintech regulatory framework (Global Legal Group 2021). The Ontario
Securities Commission, the Autorité des marchés financiers in Quebec and the
Canadian Securities Administrators are currently utilizing fintech sandboxes to
experiment with various solutions (Canadian Bankers Association 2018). Separately,
the federal government in its 2018 Budget Implementation Act, Bill C-74, intro-
duced changes (e.g. the Bank Act, Trust and Loan Companies Act and Insurance
Companies Act) in favour of fintech to provide financial institutions with new abili-
ties (ibid.). What follows is an account of how these factors correspond to AI for
sustainable finance in institutional and societal scenarios.
4 Institutional and Societal Approaches
Three major AI for sustainable finance approaches have emerged related to achiev-
ing the SDGs. The first is at the institutional level and involves redirecting the allo-
cation of existing financial resources toward activities such as ESG investing. The
second is at the societal level and includes the expansion of financial resources
through financial inclusion to support the SDGs. The third is at the regulatory level
and uses technology (regulatory technology or “regtech”) to (re)design enhanced
financial governance systems (Arner et al. 2020). The following explores the first
two approaches, which are central to the focus of this chapter.
4.1 ESG Investing
It is widely studied that SRI can support climate action (e.g. Eccles et al. 2014;
Geobey et al. 2012; Weber and Feltmate 2016). The thirteenth SDG aims to “take
urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts” by integrating measures
into national policies and institutional capacity building (UN 2019a).
This section explores whether and how AI for sustainable finance could be used
by ESG data firms that provide investors with nonfinancial performance informa-
tion. Sustainable finance and AI are both major policy areas concerning stakehold-
ers across sectors, exemplified by numerous initiatives by researchers and policy
makers across G20 member states, the United Nations and the European Commission
(Arner et al. 2020). Despite this, a paucity still exists in how they interact and
whether additional governance and regulatory considerations are necessary. This
was the case with the European Commission’s Sustainable Finance Action Plan,
which made no mention of AI or fintech (Arner et al. 2020). Further, despite the
growing availability of computational resources within financial institutions and the

emergence of fintech more than a decade ago, existing solutions have only recently
evolved to correspond with the growing interest in SRI and the abundance of big
data related to ESG (Monteleoni et al. 2013; Weber and Feltmate 2016).
Pre-existing complexities in the ESG domain have, for some time, prompted
stakeholders to demand alternative ESG data. For instance, Robert G. Eccles and
Judith Stroehle (2018) stated that despite the growing appetite for data and empiri-
cal evidence showing a correlation between ESG performance and financial out-
comes, the field remains unorganized and without universally agreed-upon standards
(Eccles et al. 2014; Khan et al. 2016). With more than 100 data providers (e.g. Vigeo
Eiris, KLD, MSCI, ISS-oekom, Sustainalytics, Morningstar) in the ESG ecosystem,
their incomplete efforts to standardize metrics, indicators and methods have created
a variance in ratings and recommendations that confuse and misinform investors
and undermine the soundness of ESG disclosure (Eccles and Stroehle 2018; GISR
2018). Further, conventional ESG providers struggle in three major ways: first, ESG
data is mainly sourced from company disclosure materials; second, ESG scores and
data are typically a year old; and third, there are discrepancies and a lack of stan-
dardization among data providers (Malinak et al. 2018; Folger-Laronde et al.
2020a, b).
Thus, some investors have turned to AI-driven ESG firms that consume big data
and apply subsets of AI such as machine learning and natural language processing
(NLP). Such tools are currently being used by asset managers, asset owners and
quantitative managers who seek real-time alternative ESG data and analytics to sup-
port their clients’ investing needs. Figure 3 shows venture capital funding in institu-
tional fintech since 2010 (Mastercard 2020).
In 2013, TruValue Labs, one of the first AI-driven ESG data providers, was
founded (TruValue Labs 2020). TruValue Labs analyses public sentiment from
alternative sources such as news media, think tanks, social media, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and academic journals related to company ESG performance
(Serafeim 2020). Specifically, TruValue Labs uses AI to analyse unstructured big
data from more than 100,000 sources, such as analyst reports, news and social
media and government sources, and incorporates the Sustainability Accounting
Standards Board’s 30 materiality classifications to generate scores (0–100) (ibid.).
It is noted that transparency and validation are provided to the user by enabling
them to track the source of information that informs the sentiment analysis. For
instance, a drilling company could receive positive sentiment following news of
their investment to improve waste and hazardous materials management, materials
sourcing and product safety. Facebook, on the other hand, could receive negative
sentiment due to exposure to data privacy issues, concerns about regulatory pressure
and user rights (ibid.). It has been reported that TruValue Labs’s sentiment analysis
can also codify the degrees of positivity or negativity, instead of just the conven-
tional binary approach: positive versus negative sentiment. According to Serafeim
(ibid.), AI will make attempts to assign a more negative score to an event such as an
oil spill that harms several people or communities and a less negative score to an
event that causes minor injuries to one person.
Fig. 3 Venture capital activity in fintech and sustainability. (Source: Mastercard 2020. www.mas-
tercard.com/news/media/bz5nmfg4/mastercard_start_path__pitchbook_fintech_for_good_report.
pdf. Note: *As of October 28, 2020)
4.1.1 Related Governance Challenges
With the rising demand for AI for Good offerings, governance mechanisms must
confront the duality of what is considered “good”. While AI-driven ESG solutions
can be useful to investors when evaluating a firm’s sustainability activities, it is not
clear whether the algorithms that power such solutions have considered ethics,
inclusion and environmental factors that could potentially compromise progress
toward the SDGs. A recent study (Vinuesa et al. 2020) published in Nature revealed
that while AI enabled the accomplishment of 134 SDG targets, it inhibited the prog-
ress of 59. The study indicated that failure to enforce governance and regulatory
oversight for AI for sustainable development could result in negative societal and
environmental implications (ibid.).
From an ethics and inclusion perspective, key aspects that require governance
attention include transparency, equity, auditability and accountability. For instance,
different algorithms that process the same raw data may ultimately produce differ-
ent outcomes, which may have discriminatory, exclusionary and exploitative impli-
cations (Ehrentraud et al. 2020). A recent study surveyed numerous jurisdictions
and found that none enforced any regulatory requirements for financial institutions
that employ AI (ibid.). Another growing subdomain of AI ethics is sustainable AI,
which confronts whether AI itself is environmentally sustainable when considering

computing power and energy consumption required for training AI (van Wynsberghe
2021). For instance, Strubell et al. (2019) showed that training a single NLP model,
which uses deep learning, could produce the same amount of carbon dioxide (CO2)
(around 600,000 pounds) as five cars over the cars’ entire lifespan (van Wynsberghe
2021). Thus, policy makers must continue refining regulation and legislation stan-
dards that address these ethical considerations.
To address some of these challenges, nations such as Singapore have released
frameworks to promote AI fairness, ethics, accountability and transparency, while
the Netherlands promotes soundness, accountability, fairness, ethics, skills and
transparency (Ehrentraud et al. 2020). The Canadian Institute for Advanced
Research’s Pan-Canadian AI Strategy (appointed by the federal government in
2017) has been working to develop the world’s first national AI strategy, including
a work stream titled “AI & Society” (Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
n.d.). Other nations, particularly in the G20, also have efforts under way that look to
expose and address negative implications for society (Ehrentraud et al. 2020).
4.2 Financial Inclusion
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development recognizes that poverty is the great-
est global challenge and its eradication is a requirement for sustainable develop-
ment. The first SDG aims to “end poverty in all its forms everywhere”1 and pushes
for robust protection systems and spending on primary services to help individuals
escape poverty.
This section explores whether and how AI could help promote an inclusive digi-
tal economy that provides financial services to the unbanked (those who have no
bank account or transactions through a mobile money provider) and underserved
individuals living in poverty. Around 700 million people today live on less than $2
per day and 1.3 billion people are multidimensionally poor (United Nations
Development Programme 2019). Some priority areas and associated targets include
reducing poverty by 50% (by 2030), improving access to sustainable livelihoods
and entrepreneurial opportunities, empowering people living in poverty with sup-
port systems and addressing the disproportionate impact of poverty on women
(United Nations 2019b). While extreme poverty has declined, this trend has slowed,
and the United Nations warns that we are not on track to achieve its 2030 global
target (less than 3% living in extreme poverty) (ibid.). The COVID-19 pandemic has
further exacerbated circumstances for the most vulnerable. Since 2020, the follow-
ing trends have been observed: global poverty (SDG 1)2 has increased for the first
time in decades; inequalities and dangers that women and girls face have increased
1
See https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal1
2
Ibid.
(SDG 5)3; the world is facing the worst economic recession since the great recession
(SDG 8)4; and investment in fossil fuels remains higher than in climate action (SDG
13)5 (United Nations n.d.).
Financial inclusion is one of the UN Global Compact categories in which the
financial sector can play a role in addressing the SDGs, with about 1.7 billion peo-
ple remaining unbanked (Demirgüç-Kunt et al. 2017; Weber 2018). The United
Nations states that to eradicate poverty by 2030, “affordable technological solutions
have to be developed and disseminated widely” (United Nations Development
Programme 2019, para. 2). The role of technology, concerning financial inclusion,
has been discussed by stakeholders after the onset of the GFC. In 2008, policy mak-
ers established the Alliance for Financial Inclusion while G20 leaders endorsed a
Financial Inclusion Action Plan at the Seoul Summit in 2010 and created the GPFI
(Gabor and Brooks 2017). In 2015, the United Nations emphasized financial inclu-
sion in multiple SDGs (numbers 1, 5 and 10) and noted the value of technology in
accelerating them (Greenvest and United Nations Environment Programme 2017).
In 2018, a collaboration between the IMF and World Bank gave rise to the Bali
Fintech Agenda, which established a broad road map to appropriately implementing
digital financial inclusion (Sahay et al. 2020).
In the Global South (e.g. China, Ghana, India, Kenya, Myanmar, Peru and
Uganda), AI for sustainable finance has also been advanced by governments, mobile
money networks and NGOs to help address the needs of individuals who are gener-
ally unbanked or experiencing poverty. Offerings include income and liquidity sup-
port, filing tax returns, flexible loan repayments, lower transaction costs and
increased transaction limits, which are helping shift away from conventional finan-
cial service practices (ibid.). AI for sustainable finance firms such as CreditVidya6
and Zest Finance use alternative data such as “digital fingerprinting” captured from
an individual’s device, browser and social media activity to predict creditworthiness
(Zest AI 2020). In Kenya, M-Shwari (Bharadwaj and Suri 2020) uses a mobile
money system (M-Pesa) to incorporate phone history in its assessment of credit
risk. With 20% of adults (37 million users) in Kenya actively using this service,
M-Shwari is seen by some as a financial inclusion success story (Bharadwaj and
Suri 2020; Cantú and Ulloa 2020). The service incorporates predictive algorithms
and AI to analyse social and telecom data to assess creditworthiness. Within a few
minutes, a credit score is produced, offering the terms of the loan (Bharadwaj and
Suri 2020). On a macro level, insights about the economic health and resilience of a
community can also be extrapolated from the use of mobile financial services,
monthly airtime top-up patterns and the purchase of value-added services (United
Nations Development Programme 2019). Despite their potential to contribute to the
3
4
5
6
See https://creditvidya.com/how-it-works
SDGs, these examples (such as institutional ones noted above) must be approached
with great caution due to risks related to data security, accountability and bias.
With regard to global remittances, recorded annual flows in 2018 to low- and
middle-income nations reached US$529 billion (a 9.6% increase since 2017) (World
Bank 2019). Conventional transactions pose barriers such as high fees, lack of
traceability and beneficiaries who lack formal identification or bank accounts
(ibid.). To address this, AI for sustainable finance related to remittance transactions
may remove such constraints by ensuring transparency of inflows, directing remit-
tances toward socially responsible purchases, offering cheaper transaction fees (a
reduction from ten to three percent), securing the privacy of individuals and creating
digital IDs that can be used for other money transfers (United Nations Development
Programme 2018). AI for sustainable finance is also being used to provide unbanked
individuals with insurance rates for farming, credit scores and loans through
consent-based alternative data sources such as digital (email, social media and
mobile transactions), behavioural and psychometrics. Despite much progress, gov-
ernance mechanisms are necessary to ensure such initiatives address inclusion, eth-
ics and collaboration in their design, development and implementation.
While anecdotal indications seem to show great potential for AI for sustainable
finance when considering financial inclusion, risks and unintended consequences
have been hard to quantify and are loosely studied. In order for AI to best serve
financial inclusion, “exclusive inclusion” must be addressed. Broadly defined,
exclusive inclusion is the deliberate or unintentional practice of “including” or aid-
ing particular groups of people while knowingly or unknowingly excluding others.
The concept can also refer to providing services that (from the perspective of the
provider) seem to address recipients’ needs while overlooking or ignoring their
other interconnected needs. Often, such practices worsen pre-existing risks or trig-
ger new ones.
For instance, AI for sustainable finance has the potential to close gender gaps and
ensure women (currently one billion are unbanked) are not left behind; however,
special attention needs to be paid to pre-existing barriers for women such as access
to technology (smartphones and internet access), cultural and social norms and digi-
tal and financial literacy (D’Silva et al. 2019; Sahay et al. 2020). Undocumented
individuals (particularly women) could face even more risks and complexities. This
is important given AI for sustainable finance is often the only viable option for many
refugees who are seeking loans. Further, as the spread of credit has increased from
Global North countries to such individuals, it has resulted in uneven distribution of
credit access and livelihood support, since some (e.g. entrepreneurs) are deemed
worthy of loans while others experience further exclusion (Bhagat and Roderick
2020). Critics of such approaches suggest that such options are an extension of
financialization and situate marginalized people as recipients of unregulated finan-
cial services through technology (Gabor and Brooks 2017).
To cultivate dignity, agency and benefit to underbanked and unbanked individu-

als, efforts should be made by AI for sustainable finance firms to include recipients
in the design, development, implementation and feedback phases. The principle of
sankofa, derived from the Akan people of Ghana, illustrates this mindset (Temple
2010). It states that to collectively shape and inform the future, we must look back
and recognize the past, or anything about us, done without us, does nothing for us
(ibid.). This concept underscores the importance of clear and effective regulatory
oversight and governance frameworks and agreed-upon metrics for monitoring.
While some work has been carried out by the likes of the OECD, the G20 and the
ITU, these efforts must be broadened to reflect the diversity of global contexts to
generate buy-in and participation by stakeholders (UN Secretary-General’s High-
level Panel on Digital Cooperation 2019).
5 Navigating Through a Pandemic
5.1 COVID-19: A “Natural Experiment”
The COVID-19 pandemic is the most devastating and pervasive challenge in mod-
ern history. This global emergency has been classified as a “mega-crisis” or a sys-
tem that consists of numerous crises, each with interconnected parts, drivers and
consequences (Pashang 2020). Almost 2 years have gone by since cases of
COVID-19 first appeared in Wuhan, China. Despite recent vaccination programs,
more than 220 million cases and more than five million deaths have been confirmed
worldwide, and the pandemic continues to spread havoc (World Health Organization
n.d.). Due to physical distancing and lockdown measures resulting from the pan-
demic, financial services designed around cash and in-person interactions to open
accounts, determine creditworthiness or provide financial literacy significantly
shifted to contactless and cashless transactions, deployment of government support
measures and lending (Sahay et al. 2020). Fintech has evolved from spending to
lending to fill existing gaps within traditional financial services (ibid.).
The global demand for fintech services increased dramatically during the pan-
demic, particularly in response to the varying severity of lockdown restrictions
enforced across regions. A major cross-sector study analysed 1385 fintech firms
across 169 countries and found that services in markets with more stringent lock-
down restrictions reported larger growth in volume and number of transactions
(Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, World Bank and World Economic
Forum 2020). Figure 4 illustrates that fintech firms situated in regions with the high-
est stringency measures reported 50% more volume and transactions (year-on-year
Q1 to Q2) than those in the lowest quantile (ibid.).
In many parts of the world, fintech has supported individuals and businesses
through challenges caused by the pandemic. For instance, small- and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) in Latin America that were in need of relief were able to access
16% 15%
14%
14%
12%
12%
10% 10% 10%
9%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Low Stringency (n.229) Medium Stringency (n.707) High Stringency (n.397)
Transaction Volumes Number of Transactions
Source: Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, World Bank and World Economic Forum
(2020).
Fig. 4 Transaction volumes and number of transactions under low, medium and high COVID-19
lockdown stringencies, all fintech verticals (% change, year-on-year Q1–Q2). (Source: Cambridge
Centre for Alternative Finance, World Bank and World Economic Forum 2020)
Fig. 5 Implementation or delivery partner in COVID-19-related relief measures of schemes, all

fintech verticals (% of respondents). (Source: Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, World
Bank and World Economic Forum (2020). Note: “N/A” and “No, not interested” responses have
been omitted)
government transfers through digital disbursements (Cantú and Ulloa 2020).

Through the mobile app of a state-owned bank, the federal government in Brazil
was able to increase access for unbanked and underbanked individuals to receive
aid. Similar occurrences took place in Peru and Argentina via municipalities, while
in Mexico, fintech firms applied alternative credit rating technology to provide loans
(approved in 24 h) at a lower cost to SMEs. Figure 5 highlights areas where AI for
sustainable finance played a role in supporting governments around the world with
pandemic relief measures (Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, World Bank
and World Economic Forum 2020).
In Canada, the pandemic accelerated the digitalization of the economy and reig-
nited debate about the future of cash and banking. Before the pandemic, the BoC
had piloted Project Jasper, one of the most comprehensive crypto-based central
bank digital currencies in the world (IMF 2019; FSB 2017). Less than a year after
the onset of the pandemic, with growing hesitancy among consumers about using
cash, BoC Deputy Governor Timothy Lane stated that “if we want to be ready to
develop any kind of digital central bank product, we need to move faster than we
thought was going to be necessary” (Gordon 2020, para. 4). For central banks in
emerging and frontier markets, financial inclusion has been among the main reasons
for exploring cryptocurrencies such as stablecoin (Bank for International
Settlements 2020).
The FSB has indicated that fintech does not yet (by itself) pose significant risks
(Restoy 2019; Sahay et al. 2020). From a macroeconomic perspective, given appro-
priate regulations are in place, AI for sustainable finance may offer positive out-
comes by enabling greater portions of the population to participate in formal
economic activity. This was supported by the IMF, which suggested AI for sustain-
able finance has the potential to enhance the efficacy of post-pandemic macroeco-
nomic policies, when considering income creation and employment (Sahay
et al. 2020).
Notwithstanding these opportunities, it is not yet understood whether or how
such opportunities could instead exacerbate pre-existing and/or new risks to those
they intend to serve. Looking to prior examples, the rapid development of various
fintech has resulted in structural unintended consequences, leading to a spike in
predatory lending practices and financing terrorism and corruption (Orol 2018). In
2020, such practices have already been observed in Indonesia, where the Financial
Services Authority shut down more than 1000 unlicensed digital lenders that offered
prohibited services and employed contentious debt collection approaches (Faux
2020; Sahay et al. 2020). These trends could intensify during the pandemic given
that millions of people have faced sudden job loss and unemployment. To mitigate
these risks, there is a need for cross-sector partnerships at both the domestic and
international levels for policy development (Sahay et al. 2020).
Stringent lockdown restrictions have also increased the overreliance on AI for
sustainable finance, which may lead to unintentional harms that foster exclusive
inclusion. Due to the online-only nature of digital services, individuals without
technological accessibility or literacy may be discriminated against and excluded.
Unequal access to digital infrastructure, potential biases in data analytics and mod-
elling and lack of access to technology (e.g. smartphones, computers and the inter-
net) could also lead to new forms of exclusion if there is a strong drive toward
digital financial services during and after the pandemic (ibid.). Further, the pan-
demic could restrict already marginalized groups such as women, the elderly, those
with disabilities, non-status migrants and those living in remote communities (UN
Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation 2019). Additionally,
those experiencing homelessness, trafficked individuals (whose finances may be
controlled or surveilled) and incarcerated individuals (who are forbidden to use

electronic devices) would likely be excluded in a cashless society (Engert et al.
2018; Choi et al. 2021).
The COVID-19 pandemic is the first “natural experiment” event or test of resil-
ience of AI for sustainable finance. To evolve governance objectives, cross-sector
partnerships and multilateral activities must continue to be explored, including reg-
ulatory sandboxes that expose potential risks and benefits. Seminal reports such as
the Bali Fintech Agenda have offered frameworks for AI for sustainable finance in
the past; however, there still are no internationally agreed regulatory standards. The
pervasiveness of the pandemic may very well have led to the reallocation of
resources and priorities related to these ambitions. The silver lining is that, as the
global community endeavours to navigate out of this natural experiment, AI for
sustainable finance has once again answered the call to serve people and planet in
times of crisis.
6 Key Policy Considerations
While numerous journal papers, policy reports and grey literature have been pub-
lished by scholars, governments, standard-setting and regulatory bodies and private
sector firms, few have investigated and incorporated findings of governance for AI
for sustainable finance, from both societal and institutional vantage points. Although
this proposal aligns with and complements earlier important works, including the
2020 report The Promise of Fintech: Financial Inclusion in the Post COVID-19 Era
(Sahay et al. 2020), this chapter narrows the focus and disentangles concepts by
providing three key policy recommendations when considering AI for sustainable
finance. Drawing on findings from the literature, it is recommended that policy
makers consider the following: first, mitigate unintended social and environmental
consequences; second, promote ESG disclosure; and third, strengthen cross-sector
partnerships.
6.1 Mitigate Unintended Social

and Environmental Consequences
It is necessary to call on national governments, the private sector, intergovernmental

organizations and civil society to research, promote and implement AI for sustain-
able finance policies that respect social inclusion and environmental protection,
using the SDGs as a framework. AI for sustainable finance must incorporate an
inclusive, ethical and collaborative approach into its design, development and
implementation. With the increased dependence on emerging technologies as a
solution to development, both social and environmental implications must be
considered.
First, inequitable social relations may appear between those who define, control
and administer technology for development and the recipients of such solutions
(Vinuesa et al. 2020). These inequalities may ultimately violate the SDGs, and,
therefore, AI for sustainable finance initiatives should consider who is included and
excluded, who benefits and why and how can the marginalized be empowered
(Gupta and Vegelin 2016). This entails an in-depth and critical understanding of the
challenges faced by the present generations without compromising the livelihoods
of future generations (Bansal 2019). Inclusion, feedback and input of end users are
necessary ingredients that ensure value, consideration, agency and dignity for
unbanked individuals (Dupas et al. 2018). As social, environmental and technologi-
cal needs and constraints evolve, encouraging feedback from relevant stakeholders
is important to ensure that AI for sustainable finance initiatives continue to add
value to the user (ibid.). This input ensures that voices and changing circumstances
are considered and that resources are effectively allocated to address them
(Young 2011).
Second, rapid innovation and greater access to technology have unintended con-
sequences on the environment (World Economic Forum 2019). The increased
demands for energy that produce and fuel digital technologies have significant
impacts on the environment in several ways, including increased resource mining,
electricity usage, harmful by-products, fossil fuel consumption and electronic waste
(ibid.). The World Economic Forum (ibid.) stated that electronic waste is the fastest
growing waste stream globally, reaching 48 million tonnes and worth $62 billion.
While much work is to be done, large organizations (“big tech”) have recently
started building sustainability programs to reduce and offset these implications
(Rolnick et al. 2019). Technology giants such as Google have partnered with NGOs
to shift toward circular economies by investing in restorative and regenerative data
centres, products and supply chains (Google 2016). Google has been carbon neutral
since 2007 and for several years has been matching its energy usage with 100%
renewable energy purchases (ibid.). The company has also designed carbon-AI sys-
tems to shift heavy computing in their data centres during peak times using wind
and solar power, without creating additional demands on electricity. This is part of
an ambitious effort to source carbon-free energy on a 24/7 basis (ibid.). Despite this
progress, big tech companies such as Google also contribute to climate change. For
instance, Google’s AlphaGo Zero AI project generated the same amount (96 tonnes)
of CO2 during its 40 days of training as 23 American homes (van Wynsberghe
2021). Not surprisingly, Amazon and Microsoft, despite promoting their sustain-
ability efforts, also release large amounts of CO2 emissions to run their services
(Strubell et al. 2019).
Recipients or users of AI for sustainable finance should play a role in the design,
development and implementation of such innovations. This would ensure that vari-
ous perspectives are considered equitably, which may increase adoption and enhance
livelihoods (Gupta and Vegelin 2016). Predicting the needs of future generations
through sustainable development, therefore, is not against generating business
wealth but addressing two unique and interrelated criteria: wealth should meet
people’s basic needs and should be generated within the constraints of the Earth’s
productive capacity (Bansal 2019).
6.2 Promote ESG Disclosure
Stakeholders and markets are increasingly pressuring corporations, including finan-

cial services providers, to disclose details about their socio-ecological impacts via
reporting (ElAlfy and Weber 2019). Amran et al. (2014) argue that reporting assists
decision-makers, namely, socially responsible investors, in processing environmen-
tal, economic and social data. Compared to 1999, there has been an increase in
corporations (from 35% to 80% of the top 250 companies of the Global 500) pro-
ducing reports, especially those who operate in “sensitive” industries (e.g. resource
extraction) (ibid.). Reporting quality has and continues to face criticism surround-
ing the accuracy and transparency of ESG data. This has resulted in greenwashing
and organizational biases that prevent concerned stakeholders from making effec-
tive and informed investment decisions (Eccles and Stroehle 2018). For instance,
organizational leaders can control and disseminate information, withholding infor-
mation to ultimately influence market performance (ibid.).
AI for sustainable finance firms must be held to the same disclosure standards.
Reports could include information about a firm’s economic, environmental and
social activities so that stakeholders can evaluate motivations, reputation and short-
and long-term direction (ElAlfy and Weber 2019). ESG disclosure for AI for sus-
tainable finance providers would also be a vital step forward to demonstrate
transparency and effective governance as well as to enhance reputation and account-
ability. Such topics have recently entered mainstream discourse related to block-
chain technology. Tesla CEO Elon Musk, a proponent of cryptocurrency, recently
tweeted about Tesla halting the bitcoin as a payment method due to the exorbitant
energy consumption of mining. Mining bitcoin is energy-intensive and typically
relies on electricity generated by coal. Musk tweeted: “Cryptocurrency is a good
idea...but this cannot come at great cost to the environment” (BBC News 2019, para.
6). Soon after, shares plunged by 10%, and at one point a week later, it had dropped
by 30% (down to $34,770) (Browne and Kharpal 2021). As a result, investors and
public actors have come to know that mining bitcoin consumes more energy (121.36
terawatt-hours/year), and hence produces CO2, than all of Argentina (121 terawatt-
hours/year) (Criddle 2021). Musk later signalled that Tesla would consider accept-
ing payment through other cryptocurrencies that were less energy-intensive
(Peterseil and Hajric 2021). Subsequently, bitcoin prices surged again when Musk
tweeted that he met with the newly formed Bitcoin Mining Council that aims to
“promote energy usage transparency & accelerate sustainability initiatives world-
wide” (Saylor 2021). The sustainability case for business in this regard has the
potential to incentivize fintech firms and investors alike toward ESG practices.
6.3 Strengthen Cross-Sector Partnerships
As the 17 SDGs and 169 associated targets are interconnected, the fulfilment of the
2030 Agenda will require sectors (including incumbents, start-ups, regulators and
policy makers) to work collectively on financial resources, sharing of knowledge
and technology and tackling issues in all countries, especially developing ones (UN
Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation 2019). To support this
aim, the United Nations can serve as a convener to explore the role, configuration
and implementation of strategies that apply to AI for sustainable finance
initiatives.
In both institutional and societal cases described in previous sections, experts
from NGOs, the private sector, academia and government must come together to
address sustainable development. This should be done with community members
and end users contributing to solutions that will affect their livelihoods (Erdiaw-
Kwasie and Alam 2016). With this mindset, collaborations would allow each actor
to identify and overcome existing gaps more effectively (ibid.). Global innovation
systems have conventionally been created by single institutions in the private or
public sectors but have fallen short of meeting global targets, especially those
addressing issues related to poverty, climate change and associated vulnerabilities
(Casillas and Kammen 2010; Eakin et al. 2014; Pinkse and Kolk 2012). Typically,
technologies are not developed for markets that do not drive revenue, or when
developed, they do not consider the end user’s needs, lowering agency, adoption and
efficacy (Anadon et al. 2016). For instance, smaller fintech providers in sub-Saharan
Africa eagerly, but hesitantly, partner with larger incumbents as they often face
power imbalances and fear that their businesses are at risk (Chetty et al. 2019).
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the integration of government digital systems
and AI for sustainable finance firms proved effective in providing policy support in
the absence of physical human interaction. Therefore, to ensure digital financial
inclusion, a fiscal response must work in parallel with digital infrastructure imple-
mentation as well as enhance digital and financial literacy. Actors across sectors
must strike a balance to ensure digital innovation can thrive while governance and
regulatory mechanisms are in place as the demand increases for AI for sustainable
finance. This will help prevent risks to financial integrity as well as to consumers
(cybersecurity, predatory lending practices and so forth). Further, policy makers can
work toward international standards and agreements on data privacy, cybersecurity,
digital identification and digital currencies (Sahay et al. 2020).
AI for sustainable finance may present risks and contradictory, unintended or
unexpected consequences. To effectively identify and manage the risks and oppor-
tunities related to AI for sustainable finance, there is a need for global dialogue and
governance involving multiple stakeholders aligned with the SDGs. Partnerships
(across and within sectors) and policies should be developed to share and bridge
digital resources (data, knowledge, practices and tools) besides addressing topics
with multiple lenses. This approach will aid in increasing standards consistency
across institutions, digital equality and inclusion for underrepresented voices such
as women and traditionally marginalized groups and the interoperability of data and
access for end users (UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital
Cooperation 2019). Serving as an impartial facilitator, bodies such as the United
Nations can work with actors to develop AI for sustainable finance impact assess-
ments and to ensure mechanisms that safeguard against data security and privacy
issues (Hilbert 2017). Other major areas requiring coordination include the lack of
harmonized standards and interoperability of technology, fragmentation of payment
systems, lack of commonly accepted application programming interface standards
and development of open-sourced platforms and a common payments ecosystem
(Bank of International Settlements 2020; Ehrentraud et al. 2020).
7 Conclusion
AI for sustainable finance is evolving rapidly. With its continued emergence, there
will be both opportunities and risks related to sustainable development and financial
stability that policy makers and regulators should consider. This chapter investi-
gated the role and implications of AI in achieving the SDGs. To address current and
future governance challenges, three key recommendations were provided to serve as
a guidepost for AI for sustainable finance in both institutional and societal settings
as well as through the COVID-19 pandemic. As with any innovation, AI can provide
either opportunity or exacerbate social or environmental inequality, and responsibil-
ity falls on academics, policy makers, corporate actors, innovators and citizens to
work toward solutions beneficial to the three pillars of sustainability.
Works Cited
Aaron, Meyer, Francisco Rivadeneyra, and Samantha Sohal. 2017. Fintech: Is This Time
Different? A Framework for Assessing Risks and Opportunities for Central Banks. Bank of
Canada Staff Discussion Paper 2017–10. www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/
sdp2017-10.pdf.
Aganaba-Jeanty, Timiebi, Sam Anissimov, and Oonagh E. Fitzgerald. 2017. Blockchain
ClimateCup Round Table. Conference Report, Centre for International Governance Innovation,
November 6. www.cigionline.org/publications/blockchain-climatecup-round-table/.
Alexander, Alex J., Shi Lin, and Bensam Solomon. 2017. How Fintech is Reaching the Poor
in Africa and Asia : A Start-Up Perspective. EMCompass Note 34. International Finance
Corporation, World Bank Group.
Amran, Azlan, Shiau Ping Lee, and S. Susela Devi. 2014. The Influence of Governance Structure
and Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility Toward Sustainability Reporting Quality.
Business Strategy and the Environment 23 (4): 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1767.
Anadon, Laura Diaz, Gabriel Chan, Alicia G. Harley, Kira Matus, Suerie Moon, Sharmila
L. Murthy, and William C. Clark. 2016. Making Technological Innovation Work for Sustainable
Development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
113 (35): 9682–9690. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525004113.
Arner, Douglas W., Ross P. Buckley, Dirk A. Zetzsche, and Robin Veidt. 2020. Sustainability,
FinTech and Financial Inclusion. European Business Organization Law Review 21 (1): 7–35.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-020-00183-y.
Arthur, W. Brian. 2009. The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. New York:
Free Press.
Bank for International Settlements. 2020. Payment Aspects of Financial Inclusion in the Fintech
Era. www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d191.pdf.
Bansal, Pratima. 2019. Sustainable Development in an Age of Disruption. Academy of Management
Discoveries 5 (1). https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2019.0001.
BBC News. 2019. Tesla Will No Longer Accept Bitcoin Over Climate Concerns, Says Musk. BBC
News, May 13. www.bbc.com/news/business-57096305.
Bhagat, Ali, and Leanne Roderick. 2020. Banking on Refugees: Racialized Expropriation in the
Fintech Era. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 52 (8): 1498–1515. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0308518X20904070.
Bharadwaj, Prashant, and Tavneet Suri. 2020. Improving Financial Inclusion through Digital
Savings and Credit. AEA Papers and Proceedings 110 (May): 584–588. https://doi.org/10.1257/
pandp.20201084.
Blakstad, Sofie, and Robert Allen. 2018. FinTech Revolution: Universal Inclusion in the New
Financial Ecosystem. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Browne, Ryan, and Arjun Kharpal. 2021. Bitcoin Plunges 30% to $30,000 at One Point in Wild
Session, Recovers Somewhat to $38,000. CNBC, May 19. www.cnbc.com/2021/05/19/bitcoin-
btc-price-plunges-but-bottom-could-be-near-.html.
Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, World Bank and World Economic Forum. 2020. The
Global Covid-19 FinTech Market Rapid Assessment Study. Cambridge, UK: University of
Cambridge. www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Covid19_FinTech_Market_Rapid_
Assessment_Study_2020.pdf.
Canadian Bankers Association. 2018. Read the CBA’s remarks to the House of Commons Finance
Committee on the first 2018 Federal Budget Implementation Act. Remarks to the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Finance regarding Bill C-74 (Budget ImplementationAct, 2018,
No. 1.), May 9. www.cba.ca/remarks-house-of-commons-2018-budget-implementation-act.
Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. n.d. Pan-Canadian AI Strategy. https://cifar.ca/ai/.
Cantú, Carlos, and Bárbara Ulloa. 2020. The dawn of Fintech in Latin America: Landscape,
Prospects and Challenges. BIS Papers No. 112. www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap112.pdf.
Carmichael, Kevin. 2020. Will the Coronavirus Prompt Central Bankers
to Rethink Their Approach to Digital Currencies? Opinion, Centre for
International Governance Innovation, May 25. www.cigionline.org/articles/
will-coronavirus-prompt-central-bankers-rethink-their-approach-digital-currencies.
Casillas, Christian E., and Daniel M. Kammen. 2010. The Energy-Poverty-Climate Nexus. Science
330 (6008): 1181–1182. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197412.
Castilla-Rubio, Juan Carlos, Simon Zadek, and Nick Robins. 2016. Fintech and Sustainable
Development: Assessing the Implications. United Nations Environment Programme.
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/20724/Fintech_and_Sustainable_
Development_Assessing_the_Implications_Summary.pdf.
Chetty, Krish, Jaya Josie, Ephafarus Mashotola, Babalwa Siswana, Kim Kariuki, Shenglin Ben,
Zheren Wang, Edward Brient, Wenwei Li, and Man Luo. 2019. Forming a G20 Fintech
Association Forum to Broker International Partnerships Promoting Financial Inclusion in
Developing and Emerging Economies. www.g20-insights.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/
t20-japan-tf2-11-g20-fintech-association-forum-1.pdf.
Cheung, Bernice. n.d. Consumer Adoption Of FinTech During The
COVID-19 Pandemic. Environics Research. https://environics.ca/article/
consumer-adoption-of-fintech-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/.
Choi, Kyoung Jin, Ryan Henry, Alfred Lehar, and Joel Reardon. 2021. A Proposal for a Canadian
CBDC. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3786426.
Clopath, Claudia, Ruben De Winne, Mohammad Emtiyaz Khan, and Tom Schaul. 2019. AI for
the Social Good. Report from Dagstuhl Seminar 19082. https://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/voll-
texte/2019/10862/pdf/dagrep_v009_i002_p111_19082.pdf.
Cornish, Edward. 1982. Communications Tomorrow: The Coming of the Information Society.
Bethesda: World Future Society.
Criddle, Cristina. 2021. Bitcoin Consumes ‘More Electricity Than Argentina.’ BBC News,
February 10. www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952.
D’Silva, Derryl, Zuzana Filková, Frank Packer, and Siddharth Tiwari. 2019. The Design of Digital
Financial Infrastructure: Lessons From India. BIS Papers No. 106. www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/
bispap106.pdf.
Demirgüç-Kunt, Asli, Leora Klapper, Dorothe Singer, Saniya Ansar, and Jake Hess. 2017. The
Global Findex Database 2017: Measuring Financial Inclusion and the Fintech Revolution.
Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and World Bank.
www.worldbank.org/globalfindex.
Dupas, Pascaline, Dean Karlan, Jonathan Robinson, and Diego Ubfal. 2018. Banking the
Unbanked? Evidence from Three Countries. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics
10 (2): 257–297. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20160597.
Eakin, H.C., M.C. Lemos, and D.R. Nelson. 2014. Differentiating Capacities as a Means to
Sustainable Climate Change Adaptation. Global Environmental Change 27 (1): 1–8. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.013.
Eccles, Robert G., Ioannis Ioannou, and George Serafeim. 2014. The Impact of Corporate
Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance. Management Science 60 (11):
2835–2857. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984.
Eccles, Robert G., and Judith C. Stroehle. 2018. Exploring Social Origins in the Construction of
ESG Measures. Working Paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3212685.
Ehrentraud, Johannes, Denise Garcia Ocampo, Lorena Garzoni, and Mateo Piccolo. 2020. Policy
Responses to Fintech: A Cross-Country Overview. FSI Insights on Policy Implementation No.
23. www.bis.org/fsi/publ/insights23.pdf.
ElAlfy, Amr, and Olaf Weber. 2019. Corporate Sustainability Reporting: The Case of the
Banking Industry. CIGI Papers No. 211. Waterloo: CIGI. www.cigionline.org/publications/
corporate-sustainability-reporting-case-banking-industry/.
Engert, Walter, Ben S. C. Fung, and Scott Hendry. 2018. Is a Cashless Society Problematic? Bank of
Canada Staff Discussion Paper 2018–12. www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/
sdp2018-12.pdf.
Erdiaw-Kwasie, Michael O., and Khorshed Alam. 2016. Towards Understanding Digital Divide in
Rural Partnerships and Development: A Framework and Evidence From Rural Australia. Journal
of Rural Studies 43 (February): 214–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.12.002.
Faux, Zeke. 2020. From Micro-Credit to Major Debt. Bloomberg Businessweek,
February 17. www.magzter.com/stories/Business/Bloomberg-Businessweek/
FROM-MICRO-CREDIT-TO-MAJOR-DEBT.
Fay, Robert. 2019. Digital Platforms Require a Global Governance Framework. Opinion,
Centre for International Governance Innovation, October 28. www.cigionline.org/articles/
digital-platforms-require-global-governance-framework/.
FSB. 2017. Financial Stability Implications from Fintech: Supervisory and Regulatory Issues that
Merit Authorities’ Attention. www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/R270617.pdf.
———. 2021. FinTech. www.fsb.org/work-of-the-fsb/financial-innovation-and-structural-change/
fintech.
Flammer, Caroline, and Ioannis Ioannou. 2020. Strategic Management During the Financial Crisis:
How Firms Adjust Their Strategic Investments in Response to Credit Market Disruptions.
Strategic Management Journal 42 (7): 1275–1298.
Folger-Laronde, Zachary, Sep Pashang, Leah Feor and Amr ElAlfy. 2020a. ESG Ratings and
Financial Performance of Exchange-Traded Funds During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal
of Sustainable Finance & Investment (June): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.202

0.1782814.
Gabor, Daniela, and Sally Brooks. 2017. The Digital Revolution in Financial Inclusion:
International Development in the Fintech Era. New Political Economy 22 (4): 423–436. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2017.1259298.
Geobey, Sean, Frances R. Westley, and Olaf Weber. 2012. Enabling Social Innovation through
Developmental Social Finance. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 3 (2): 151–165. https://doi.
org/10.1080/19420676.2012.726006.
GISR. 2018. Global Initiative for Sustainability Ratings. https://shift.tools/contributors/490/about.
Global Legal Group. 2021. Canada: Fintech Laws and Regulations 2020. June. https://iclg.com/
practice-areas/fintech-laws-and-regulations/canada.
Google. 2016. Machine Learning Finds New Ways for Our Data Centers to Save Energy. December.
https://sustainability.google/projects/machine-learning/.
Gordon, Julie. 2020. Pandemic accelerates need to consider digital currency: Bank
of Canada. Reuters, October 14. www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-cenbank/
pandemic-accelerates-need-to-consider-digital-currency-bank-of-canada-idUKKBN26Z2R0.
Greenvest and United Nations Environment Programme. 2017. Fintech, Green Finance and
Developing Countries. http://unepinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Fintech_Green_
Finance_and_Developing_Countries-input-paper.pdf.
Griggs, David, Mark Stafford-Smith, Owen Gaffney, Johan Rockström, Marcus C. Öhman,
Priya Shyamsundar, Will Steffen, Gisbert Glaser, Norichika Kanie, and Ian Noble. 2013.
Sustainable Development Goals for People and Planet. Nature 495: 305–307. https://doi.
org/10.1038/495305a.
Gupta, Joyeeta, and Courtney Vegelin. 2016. Sustainable Development Goals and Inclusive
Development. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 16 (3):
Harvard Kennedy School. n.d. Innovation and Access to Technologies for Sustainable Development.
www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/sustsci/activities/program-i nitiatives/
innovation/projects/innovation-and-access-to-technologies-for-sustainable-development.
Hilbert, Martin. 2017. Digital Tools for Foresight. UNCTAD Research Paper No. 10. https://unc-
tad.org/system/files/official-document/ser-rp-2017d10_en.pdf.
IMF. 2019. Fintech: The Experience So Far. IMF Policy Paper. www.imf.org/en/Publications/
Policy-Papers/Issues/2019/06/27/Fintech-The-Experience-So-Far-47056.
Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership. 2014. Sustainability in the Age of Big Data.
Philadelphia: The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. http://d1c25a6gwz7q5e.cloud-
front.net/reports/2014-09-12-Sustainability-in-the-Age-of-Big-Data.pdf.
InterAcademy Council. 2004. Inventing a Better Future: A Strategy for Building Worldwide
Capacities in Science and Technology. Amsterdam: InterAcademy Council.
ITU. 2015. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/intl-
coop/mdg/default.aspx.
———. 2018. AI for Good Global Summit: Accelerating Progress Towards the SDGs. www.itu.
int/en/ITU-T/AI/2018/Pages/default.aspx?source=jaai.de.
Juma, Calestous, and Yee-Cheong Lee. 2005. Innovation: Applying Knowledge in Development.
London: Earthscan Publishing. https://books.google.ca/books?id=TlojWAlQd44C&printsec=f
rontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Kewell, Beth, Richard Adams, and Glenn Parry. 2017. Blockchain for Good? Strategic Change 26
(5): 429–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2143.
Khan, Mozzafar, George Serafeim, and Aaron Yoon. 2016. Corporate Sustainability: First Evidence
on Materiality. The Accounting Review 91 (6): 1697–1724. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51383.
Folger-Laronde, Zachary, Sep Pashang, Leah Feor, and Amr ElAlfy. 2020b. ESG Ratings and
Financial Performance of Exchange-Traded Funds During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal
of Sustainable Finance & Investment (June): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.202
0.1782814.
Maaroof, Abbas. 2015. Big Data and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United
Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. www.unescap.org/sites/
default/files/1_BigData2030Agenda_stock-taking report_25.01.16.pdf.
Macchiavello, Eugenia, and Michele Siri. 2020. Sustainable Finance and Fintech: Can Technology
Contribute to Achieving Environmental Goals? A Preliminary Assessment of ‘Green FinTech.’
European Banking Institute Working Paper Series 2020 No. 71. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672989.
Malinak, S., J. Du, and G. Bala. 2018. Performance Tests of Insight, ESG Momentum, and Volume
Signals. https://truvaluelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/WP_PerfTest_R1k.pdf.
Marsden, Janet H., and Valerie A. Wilkinson. 2018. Big Data Analytics and Corporate Social
Responsibility: Making Sustainability Science Part of the Bottom Line. 2018 IEEE
International Professional Communication Conference. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/
document/8476826/.
Mastercard. 2020. Mastercard Start Path: Fintech for Good. www.mastercard.com/news/media/
bz5nmfg4/mastercard_start_path__pitchbook_fintech_for_good_report.pdf.
Melody, William, and Robin Mansell. 1986. Information and Communication Technologies: Social
Science Research and Training. London: Economic and Social Research Council.
Monteleoni, Claire, Gavin A. Schmidt, and Scott McQuade. 2013. Climate Informatics:
Accelerating Discovering in Climate Science with Machine Learning. Computing in Science &
Engineering 15 (5): 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2013.50.
Nelson, Richard R., ed. 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York:
Oxford University Press. https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=C3Q8DwAAQBAJ&
oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=nelson+1993&ots=diJ0lNyEkD&sig=0R0Jqyb7lPncrdYfmjptFEb3Pns
#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Nooteboom, Bart. 1992. Information Technology, Transaction Costs and the Decision to
‘Make Or Buy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 4 (4): 339–350. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09537329208524105.
Orol, Ronald. 2018. IMF Meetings to Tackle Fintech, Trade and Infrastructure. Opinion,
Centre for International Governance Innovation, October 10. www.cigionline.org/articles/
imf-meetings-tackle-fintech-trade-and-infrastructure.
Pashang. 2020. It Is Not Just A Pandemic: How The COVID-19 Mega-Crisis Affects Grief. Journal
of Concurrent Disorders 2 (3): 40–54.
Peterseil, Yakob, and Vildana Hajric. 2021. Bitcoin Dips Below $50,000 as Musk Calls
Energy Usage ‘Insane.’ Al Jazeera, May 13. www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/5/13/
bitcoin-dips-below-50000-as-musk-calls-energy-usage-insane.
Pinkse, Jonatan, and Ans Kolk. 2012. Addressing the Climate Change — Sustainable Development
Nexus: The Role of Multistakeholder Partnerships. Business & Society 51 (1): 176–210. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0007650311427426.
Restoy, Fernando. 2019. Regulating Fintech: What Is Going On, and Where Are the Challenges?
Speech delivered at the ASBA-BID-FELABAN XVI Banking public-private sector regional
policy dialogue “Challenges and opportunities in the new financial ecosystem,” Washington,
DC, October 16. www.bis.org/speeches/sp191017a.pdf.
Rolnick, David, Priya L. Donti, Lynn H. Kaack, Kelly Kochanski, Alexandre Lacoste, Kris
Sankaran, Andrew Slavin Ross, Nikola Milojevic-Dupont, Natasha Jaques, Anna Waldman-
Brown, Alexandra Luccioni, Tegan Maharaj, Evan D. Sherwin, S. Karthik Mukkavilli, Konrad
P. Kording, Carla Gomes, Andrew Y. Ng, Demis Hassabis, John C. Platt, Felix Creutzig,
Jennifer Chayes, and Yoshua Bengio. 2019. Tackling Climate Change with Machine Learning.
arXiv: 1906.05433. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05433.pdf.
Sahay, Ratna, Ulric Eriksson von Allmen, Amina Lahreche, Purva Khera, Sumiko Ogawa, Majid
Bazarbash, and Kim Beaton. 2020. The Promise of Fintech: Financial Inclusion in the Post
COVID-19 Era. Departmental Paper No. 20/09.
Saylor, Michael. 2021. “Yesterday I was pleased to host a meeting between @elonmusk &
the leading Bitcoin miners in North America. The miners have agreed to form the Bitcoin
Mining Council to promote energy usage transparency & accelerate sustainability initiatives
worldwide” (Twitter thread). Twitter, May 24, 3:47 p.m. https://twitter.com/michael_saylor/
status/1396915801492439044.
Serafeim, George. 2020. Public Sentiment and the Price of Corporate Sustainability. Financial
Analysts Journal 76 (2): 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/0015198X.2020.1723390.
Strubell, Emma, Ananya Ganesh and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Energy and Policy Considerations
for Deep Learning in NLP. Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for
Computational Linguistics, Florence, Italy, July 28–August 2: 3645–50. https://aclanthology.
org/P19-1355.pdf.
Sylvester, Gerard, ed. 2019. E-Agriculture in Action: Blockchain for Agriculture: Opportunities
and Challenges. Bangkok: Food and Agriculture Organization and ITU. www.fao.org/3/
ca2906en/ca2906en.pdf.
Taddeo, Mariarosaria, and Luciano Floridi. 2018. How AI Can Be a Force For Good. Science 361
(6404): 751–752. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat5991.
Temple, Christel N. 2010. The Emergence of Sankofa Practice in the United States: A Modern
History. Journal of Black Studies 41 (1): 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934709332464.
Townsend, Blaine. 2020. From SRI to ESG: The Origins of Socially Responsible and Sustainable
Investing. The Journal of Impact and ESG Investing 1 (1): 10–25. https://doi.org/10.3905/
jesg.2020.1.1.010.
Truvalue Labs. 2020. Our Company. www.factset.com/about-our-company.
United Nations. 2019a. Climate Change. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/
climatechange.
———. 2019b. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019. New York: United Nations.
www.un-ilibrary.org/content/books/9789210478878/read.
United Nations Development Programme. 2018. Blockchain Links Serbian Diaspora and Their
Families Back Home. Serbia (blog), July 3. www.rs.undp.org/content/serbia/en/home/
blog/2018/blockchain-links-serbian-diaspora-and-their-families-back-home.html.
———. 2019. Six Signature Solutions. www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/six-signature-
solutions.html.
UN Global Pulse and GSMA. 2017. The State of Mobile Data for Social Good Report. June. www.
unglobalpulse.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Mobile_Data_for_Social_Good_Report.pdf.
UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation. 2019. The Age of Digital
Interdependence: Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital
Cooperation. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3865925?ln=en.
van Wynsberghe, Aimee. 2021. Sustainable AI: AI for Sustainability and the Sustainability of
AI. AI and Ethics 1 (February): 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00043-6.
Goals. Nature Communications 11 (233): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14108-y.
Weber, Olaf. 2018. The Financial Sector and the SDGs: Interconnections and
Future Directions. CIGI Paper No. 201. www.cigionline.org/publications/
financial-sector-and-sdgs-interconnections-and-future-directions/.
Weber, Olaf, and Blair Feltmate. 2016. Sustainable Banking and Finance: Managing the Social
and Environmental Impact of Financial Institutions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
World Bank. 2019. Record High Remittances Sent Globally in 2018. Press release,April 8. www.world-
bank.org/en/news/press-release/2019/04/08/record-high-remittances-sent-globally-in-2018.
World Bank Group. 2020. How Regulators Respond to Fintech: Evaluating the Different
Approaches — Sandboxes and Beyond, Fintech Note No. 5. Washington, DC: International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development and World Bank Group. https://documents.
worldbank.org/curated/en/579101587660589857/pdf/How-Regulators-Respond-To-FinTech-
Evaluating-the-Different-Approaches-Sandboxes-and-Beyond.pdf.
World Bank Group and IMF. 2018. The Bali Fintech Agenda—Chapeau Paper. https://docu-
ments1.worldbank.org/curated/en/390701539097118625/pdf/130563-B R-P UBLIC-
on-10-11-18-2-30-AM-BFA-2018-Sep-Bali-Fintech-Agenda-Board-Paper.pdf.
World Economic Forum. 2019. A New Circular Vision for Electronics: Time for a Global Reboot.
January. Geneva: World Economic Forum. www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_A_New_Circular_
Vision_for_Electronics.pdf.
World Health Organization. n.d. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. Accessed 30 May
2021. https://covid19.who.int/.
Young, H. Peyton. 2011. The Dynamics of Social Innovation. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108 (4): 21285–21291. www.pnas.org/
content/pnas/108/Supplement_4/21285.full.pdf.
Zest AI. 2020. Model Management System. www.zest.ai/product.
Big Tech Corporations and AI: A Social
License to Operate and Multi-Stakeholder
Partnerships in the Digital Age
Marianna Capasso and Steven Umbrello
Abstract The pervasiveness of AI-empowered technologies across multiple sec-

tors has led to drastic changes concerning traditional social practices and how we
relate to one another. Moreover, market-driven Big Tech corporations are now
entering public domains, and concerns have been raised that they may even influ-
ence public agenda and research. Therefore, this chapter focusses on assessing and
evaluating what kind of business model is desirable to incentivise the AI for Social
Good (AI4SG) factors. In particular, the chapter explores the implications of this
discourse for SDG #17 (global partnership) and how this goal may encourage Big
Tech corporations to strengthen multi-stakeholder partnerships that promote effec-
tive public-private and civil society partnerships and the meaningful co-presence of
non-market and market values. In doing so, the chapter proposes an analysis of the
sociological notion of ‘social license to operate’ (SLO) elaborated in the mining and
extractive industry literature and introduces it into the discourse on sustainable digi-
tal business models and responsible management of risks in the digital age. This
serves to explore how such a social license can be adopted as a practice by digital
business models to foster trust, collaboration and coordination among different
actors – including AI researchers and initiatives, institutions and civil society at
large – for the support of SDGs interrelated targets and goals.
Keywords Big Tech corporations · AI4SDG · Social license · Public-private

partnerships · Sustainability
M. Capasso (*)
Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy
S. Umbrello
Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
232 M. Capasso and S. Umbrello
1 Introduction
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have and continue to entrench themselves into
the ever complex sociotechnical infrastructures that characterise our modern digital
world. These systems drive many of our everyday tools like vehicles, smartphones,
entertainment systems, financial instruments, education practices, retail and health-
care. However, the often opaque, complex nature of the techniques underlying these
systems makes their behaviours challenging to track and trace and, thus, hard to
predict. With this uncertainty comes new and challenging ethical issues that we
must confront head-on, given the ubiquity, pervasiveness and impact that these sys-
tems have and will have on our lives and societies.
We already see the consequences of many of these seemingly common, albeit
impactful AI-driven technologies on how we relate to each other and our traditional
social practices. Much of this, aside from the difficulty of managing the challenges
of the underlying AI technologies themselves, is that such AI techniques are often
not constrained to a single domain of application but instead come in the form of
commercially available (and thus easily accessible) household technologies.
Technologies like Amazon Alexa can and are easily upskilled to include novel capa-
bilities and services not native to the device. Consequently, the Big Tech corpora-
tions behind this AI upskilling of more basic systems become entangled with public
domains such as public healthcare services and many others.
This enmeshment of private corporate bodies with traditional public domains is
cause for concern, given the undue influence that these economic giants can have
not only on public research and agendas but also on the everyday interactions that
private citizens have concerning those public spheres. In response to this challenge,
this chapter focuses on assessing and evaluating what kind of business model is
desirable to incentivise the AI for Social Good (AI4SG) factors in order to better
manage this merging of domains. The AI4SG factors proposed by Floridi et al.
(2020) provide a robust normative basis for how designers should approach the
design and deployment of AI systems towards supporting social good. Likewise,
there is a growing body of research on how these AI4SG norms can be used to sup-
port higher-order values like the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
(UN SDGs). In particular, the chapter explores the implications of this discourse for
SDG #17 (global partnership) and how this goal may encourage Big Tech corpora-
tions to strengthen multi-stakeholder partnerships that promote effective public-
private and civil society partnerships and the meaningful co-presence of non-market
and market values. To do this, the chapter proposes an analysis of the ‘social license
to operate’ – a notion firstly originated from the extractive and mining industry –
and introduces it into the discourse on sustainable digital business models and
responsible management of risks in the digital age. Adopting these frameworks
serves to explore how such a social license can be adopted as a practice by digital
business models to foster trust, collaboration and coordination among different
actors, including AI researchers and initiatives, institutions and civil society at large
to support the SDGs interrelated targets and goals.
Big Tech Corporations and AI: A Social License to Operate and Multi-Stakeholder… 233
2 UNs SDGs Framework and Its Link with AI Challenges

and Impacts
2.1 The When and Why of the UN SDGs
In 2015, the United Nations and all member states adopted the 2030 agenda for
sustainable development. This 2030 agenda proposed objectives to design and
implement a worldwide safe and sustainable future (United Nations 2015). At its
foundation are 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The adopted proposal
recognises that the SDGs co-constitute and co-vary with one another. As a result,
despite their numerical designations, they are not mutually exclusive of one another,
rank-ordered or framed as trade-offs. For example, SDGs such as the ending of
poverty (SDG #1) and climate change remediation (SDG #13) go hand in hand
(Schwan 2019). Among ending poverty and climate change action, there are goals
such as ‘affordable and clean energy’ (SDG #7), ‘industry, innovation and infra-
structure’ (SDG #9) and ‘sustainable cities and communities’ (SDG #11) just to
name a few (Fig. 1).
This means that to achieve the stated goals of the 2030 proposal, an integrated
and comprehensive understanding of the goals is necessary. Reading the goals, then,
as being separate or as rank-ordered is not the correct approach. Instead, they are
best read as being mutually co-constitutive of one another. Furthermore, a more
general understanding of global system’s thinking and complexity sciences is criti-
cal to understanding the various effects of different artefacts and subsystems within
a more extensive interactive network, rather than the isolation of discrete entities
(Ballew et al. 2019; Briscoe 2015; van de Poel 2020). The resulting complexity of
Fig. 1 United nations sustainable development goals. (Source: Schwan 2019)

the covariance and interaction of entities, whether they are humans, rainforests,
institutions or technologies, means that equal if not greater interdisciplinarity from
numerous fields is required to comprehend and anticipate the effects of different
nodes within a more extensive sociotechnical system (Murphy et al. 2015).
These systemic effects did not go unignored by the General Assembly. As a
result, the UN established the Technology Facilitation Mechanism (TFM) to pro-
mote innovative solutions for the SDG agenda, viz. multi-stakeholder collaboration
(United Nations 2015). The TFM council meets before every high-level UN meet-
ing on the SDGs to discuss innovative solutions to achieve those goals. Thus, the
UN has an institutional orientation towards technology as both the problem and
potential solution to global issues. In doing so, the UN explicitly adopted an interac-
tive stance towards understanding the impacts of technology is significant. This
means that instead of viewing technology as purely deterministic or instrumental, it
affirms the interactional nature of technology and social factors at an institutional
level, permitting a landscape of comprehensive expertise to address these problems
en masse, rather than haphazardly.
Therefore, we can understand SDGs as partially emerging due to technological
development and the potential avenues for amelioration in addressing them. This, of
course, does not necessarily entail that every problem requires a high-tech solution
(nor that such a solution exists) but that institutional or even conceptual solutions
exist to high-tech problems. For example, algorithmic trading agents make rapid
stock market trades relatively easy given the efficiency of trading speeds and data
analytics to increase the probability that profitable trades are made. However, the
economic impacts of such AI systems can be potentially egregious given their rela-
tive inaccessibility to all but those organisations that can afford the expensive algo-
rithms. This can easily lead to an excessively unfair marketplace. The solution to
such a problem need not be high-tech but can come about through equitable regula-
tions in institutions limiting the times and quantities of trades to promote a fairer
marketspace for smaller organisations. Analysing these complex solutions by tack-
ling their interdependencies makes for more robust and more productive solutions.
Thus, artificial intelligence, being part of a larger milieu of ICTs and disruptive
technologies, can be understood as ways of realising the goals of SDGs in a simi-
larly holistic way, leveraging the power of big data analytics and machine learning
technologies all framed within a design perspective to direct its development
towards socially beneficial ends in the service of SDG attainment and human rights.
A salient example would be using AI systems to develop Operator 4.0 technologies
used in intelligent production manufacturing domains. Such systems support opera-
tors by extending their cognitive, sensorial, physical and interactional capacities to
increase production efficiency as well as aptly diagnose and design technological
development towards beneficial ends (Gazzaneo et al. 2020; Longo et al. 2017;
Vernim et al. 2022). Doing so not only increases productivity and thus the potential
availability/accessibility of goods such as energy production devices and medical
instruments but also provides a safer working environment for operators. The more
extensive network of indirect stakeholders is similarly implicated, such as the geo-
political entities that host such production firms and the general public that depend
on such technologies. Multiple SDGs are thus involved in such as ‘affordable and
clean energy’ (#7) and ‘industry, innovation and infrastructure’ (#9).
These goals similarly inspire the development of new technologies. For example,
goal #5 of the UN’s agenda aims at gender equality and reducing global physical and
sexual violence against women and girls. Towards this end, the peace advocacy group
Amnesty International developed and launched the ‘Panic Button’ app in 2014, per-
mitting users to leverage their networks to report attacks, kidnappings or torture
(Amnesty International 2014). The panic button on their phone allows individuals
who may face such dangers to have a powerful way of signalling abuse, exemplifying
technology’s ability to be designed to ‘fight’ for human rights and gender equality.
Another salient example of how the issues driving the SDGs inspire novel tech-
nology is AI in agriculture. Crop disease has been a leading source of global hunger
(goal #1) and poverty (goal #2) (Quinn et al. 2011). Given the continual increase in
the need for sustainable food production, accessible AI solutions to aid individual
farmers, particularly in developing countries, are required to assist in managing fac-
tors such as predictions for crop yield (You et al. 2017), growing conditions
(Kersting et al. 2012), price forecasting (Ma et al. 2019) and crop choice recom-
mendation (Von Lücken and Brunelli 2008) among others. To this end, the Artificial
Intelligence & Data Science Lab at Makerere University in Uganda developed and
released the mCrops app diagnostic tools for diagnosing viral crop diseases in cas-
sava crops, one of the important staple food crops in the country and highly suscep-
tible to viral disease (Quinn et al. 2011).
This section aimed to outline the UN’s SDG their covariance with technologies,
that is, how technologies can be understood as both the causes of the SDGs and poten-
tial solutions. Similarly, how the SDG inspires new technologies is briefly explored as
well as some examples. The following section outlines the seven AI4SG factors.
2.2 AI for Social Good
In response to the continually growing number of guidelines, frameworks and lists

of principles and practices towards socially beneficial AI systems, Floridi et al.
developed a set of seven distilled norms to guide designers towards the best prac-
tices for designing AI for Social Good (AI4SG) [see Table 1].
Similarly, given the number of definitions of AI, many of which often describe
systems that are not strictly AI, we adopt the definition of AI adopted by the latest
Artificial Intelligence Act, since it suggests a single-future proof definition of AI:
‘Artificial intelligence system’ (AI system) means software that is developed with one or
more of the techniques and approaches listed in Annex I and can, for a given set of
human-defined objectives, generate outputs such as content, predictions, recommendations,
or decisions influencing the environments they interact with (European Commission 2021).1
1
AIA 2021, 39; cf. Annexe 1 on Artificial Intelligence Techniques and Approaches: (a) Machine
learning approaches, including supervised, unsupervised and reinforcement learning, using a wide
variety of methods including deep learning; (b) logic- and knowledge-based approaches, including
knowledge representation, inductive (logic) programming, knowledge bases, inference and deduc-
tive engines, (symbolic) reasoning and expert systems; (c) statistical approaches, Bayesian estima-
tion, search and optimisation methods; see European Commission 2021.
Table 1 AI for social good factors and norms

AI4SG factor AI4SG factor norm
1. Falsifiability and AI4SG designers should identify falsifiable requirements and test them
incremental in incremental steps from the lab to the ‘outside world’ (Floridi et al.
deployment 2020, p. 7)
2. Safeguards against AI4SG designers should adopt safeguards that (i) ensure that non-causal
the manipulation of indicators do not inappropriately skew interventions and (ii) limit, when
predictors appropriate, knowledge of how inputs affect outputs from AI4SG
systems to prevent manipulation (Floridi et al. 2020, p. 8)
3. Receiver- AI4SG designers should build decision-making systems in consultation
contextualised with users interacting with and impacted by these systems; with
intervention understanding of users’ characteristics, of the methods of coordination
and of the purposes and effects of an intervention and with respect for
users’ right to ignore or modify interventions (Floridi et al. 2020, p. 9)
4. Receiver- AI4SG designers should choose a level of abstraction for AI explanation
contextualised that fulfils the desired explanatory purpose and is appropriate to the
explanation and system and the receivers and then deploy arguments that are rationally
transparent and suitably persuasive for the receivers to deliver the explanation and
purposes ensure that the goal (the system’s purpose) for which an AI4SG system
is developed and deployed is knowable to receivers of its outputs by
default (Floridi et al. 2020, p. 14)
5. Privacy protection AI4SG designers should respect the threshold of consent established for
and data subject the processing of datasets of personal data (Floridi et al. 2020, p. 16)
consent
6. Situational fairness AI4SG designers should remove from relevant datasets variables and
proxies that are irrelevant to an outcome, except when their inclusion
supports inclusivity, safety or other ethical imperatives (Floridi et al.
2020, p. 18)
7. Human-friendly AI4SG designers should not hinder the ability for people to semanticise
semanticisation (i.e. to give meaning to and make sense of) something (Floridi et al.
2020, p. 19)
Reproduced from Capasso and Umbrello (2021)
Recently, some scholars have used the term AI4SG to describe work on AI aimed
at the SDGs and to evaluate AI impacts in terms of direct and direct implications on
the seventeen SDGs (Tomašev et al., 2020; Vinuesa et al., 2020; Sætra, 2021a, b;
Umbrello and van de Poel, 2021). However, given the global impacts that AI sys-
tems can have across multiple domains, their ubiquity as well as their pervasiveness
in our sociotechnical infrastructures, it makes sense to ask how AI can be designed
to support higher-order values like the SDGs and not only the values often impli-
cated by AI like explicability, privacy and human autonomy (Fig. 2).
The AI for Good Foundation is an excellent example of a non-profit entity com-
ing together in collaboration with academic, institutional and governmental bodies
to promote AI not only as the subject of being designed for the social good but also
as a tool that can be used to support the social good in the form of the SDGs. This
is also echoed in the work of Umbrello and van de Poel (2021). They argue that a
value sensitive design approach towards technology design can be modified suffi-
ciently to address the unique challenges posed by AI systems. As a result, salient
design can draw on the UN’s SDGs as a guide for determining values to design for
(i.e. doing good/beneficial outcomes) as well as avoiding harm using the norms
described by the AI4SG norms. An example of how to visualise this can be seen in
Table 1.
Naturally, however, the motivations for design differ across different projects. As
a result, there is no normative starting point that designers must begin with. The
UN’s interactional stance maps neatly onto existing design methodologies like
value sensitive design, given that VSD is also an approach predicated in the interac-
tional stance. From this point then, technology design can begin with the discrete
technology itself as a starting point, the context of use or a specific value. For the
sake of explaining how the approach functions, we begin from the left side of the
figure – i.e. ‘Doing Good’ – to illustrate. Engineers can start by determining and
explicitly stating which of the SDGs they aim to contribute to, given the type of AI
system they are currently engaged to design. In doing so, different SDG resolutions
or ameliorations might call for different AI solutions that may be more aptly suited
rather than others. Identifying which might be most efficacious towards addressing
SDGs can then be used to determine a standard core set of values such as transpar-
ency, explicability or data privacy (i.e. the centre of the figure).
Various contextual variables come into play that impact the way values are
understood, both in conceptual terms and in practice, on account of different socio-
cultural and political norms. Eliciting stakeholders in sociocultural contexts
becomes imperative within the approach (i.e. working within the bounds to support
Fig. 2 Doing good and avoiding harm with AI4SG norms

SDG #17) to determine if the a priori explicated values of the project faithfully map
onto those of the stakeholders, both direct and indirect stakeholders. In engaging
with the context-situated nuances of how various values may come to play with any
given system, various pitfalls and constraints can begin to be envisioned, particu-
larly how the initial core values can be understood in terms of technical design
requirements. These values can then be used to distil specific technical design
requirements by using normative imperatives, in the case of AI, the AI4SG
principles.
In sum, AI has already manifested pervasive impacts on a global level. To meet
these challenges, the AI4SG norms were developed as a distilled set of design prin-
ciples to help achieve salient AI design. Still, it makes sense to ask how the AI4SG
principles relate to higher-order goals like the SDGs. This section aimed to discuss
what the SDGs were and how the SDGs can be supported in tandem with and by the
AI4SG norms. Still, this remains relatively novel in terms of its applicability. Given
the impacts of AI systems, what is required is greater uptake of an explicit orienta-
tion of using the AI4SG principles to support and further the SDGs. The following
sections will discuss how to move towards sustainable business models as well as
the concept and necessity for a ‘social license to operate’ concerning AI systems, in
particular, the application of this social license to Big Tech corporations, arguably
the source of the most impactful and forms of AI that have a global diaspora.
3 Towards Sustainable Digital Business Models: Some

Reflections on the Co-presence of Different Spheres
and Values
The pervasiveness of AI-empowered technologies across multiple sectors has led to

drastic changes concerning traditional social practices and how we relate to one
another. These technologies are often not constrained or exclusive to any given
domain of application. Instead, they are commercially available and ubiquitous sys-
tems often upskilled by providers – typically Big Tech giants – to assimilate new
functionalities and practices. ‘Big Tech corporations’ refer to the four or five largest
companies dominant in the information technology sector, including Google,
Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft. These corporations are now entering
public spheres such as healthcare. For example, Amazon announced a new partner-
ship with the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) that enabled Amazon’s digital
voice assistant Alexa to offer NHS health advice to users at home (Department of
Health and Social Care, 2019). To this end, these Big Tech giants are becoming ever
more entangled and diffused within the public sphere. This has been exacerbated by
the pandemic and subsequent lockdowns, making private individuals more depen-
dent on home technologies that can provide these health services during a public
health crisis (Vargo et al. 2020).
Technology ethicists have raised a growing concern on the predominant impact

of private and market-driven corporations on shaping public agendas and research
(Sharon 2016, 2021). However, this trend is not new: a piece of worrisome informa-
tion and power asymmetry related to the introduction of AI systems and Big Data
was already outlined in the Black Box metaphor by Frank Pasquale, who argued that
the politico-economic advantages of ‘informational exclusivity’ by private corpora-
tions could reinforce inequalities and lack of responsibility and accountability in the
whole of society (Pasquale 2015, 193).
In contrast to traditional business models that sell goods and services, Big Tech
corporations have now access to large data sets and a vast number of resources, and
this makes them critical market makers, entities that do not just provide services but
an entire infrastructure (Srnicek 2016; Zysman and Kenney 2018). Indeed, such
corporations exercise control on essential services on which many different actors
and the whole economic ecosystem depend (Rahman 2018; Rahman and Thelen
2019). Moreover, scholars have sustained that in this way, Big Tech corporations
may have not only substantial economic and market power but also a political ‘plat-
form power’ that stems directly from their consumers and users, who intimately
appreciate and rely on those corporations and tend to provide opposition to govern-
mental regulations that treat such corporations’ convenience and innovation
(Culpepper and Thelen 2019).
Thus, to sharpen our understanding of Big Tech corporations’ power and new
emerging technologies, we need a framework that allows us to explore the role of
direct and indirect stakeholders concerning corporations and government, as well as
means and modalities to integrate private power and public governance into a policy
discussion. The influencing of public opinion and domains by digital business pow-
ers may have substantial political and social implications. Therefore, it is vital to
open a serious discussion on what kind of business model(s) is desirable to incen-
tivise the AI for Social Good (AI4SG) factors in the digital world. UNs SDGs
framework can provide a valuable framework for assessing the impacts of AI,
understood not as a neutral tool but as part of a more extensive sociotechnical sys-
tem: an entanglement of technical, social and institutional dimensions, where also
economic and political interests are at stake (Sætra 2021b). Politics should not be
eliminated from the three dimensions of sustainability – economic, social and envi-
ronmental (UN 2015) – but should innervate them from within.
As already noted, several recent studies have already hinted at the potential
implications of developing and using AI for social good. For example, within the
debate on SDGs concerning the economy, scholars have claimed that AI can signifi-
cantly impact SDGs #8 (decent work and economic growth), #9 (industry, innova-
tion and infrastructure) and #10 (reduced inequalities) (Vinuesa and et al. 2020).
However, other approaches focus instead on business models and the role of AI
from the perspective of SDG #12 (responsible consumption and production) (e.g. Di
Vaio 2020), looking at how AI may integrate social and environmental needs into
current and future trends of sustainable business models.
Thus, there is extensive literature that assesses and evaluates the new role of
work and industry due to the introduction of AI. Still, little has been said about AI’s
possible long-term positive effects on the economy and as an enabler for social and
economic-related SDG targets and indicators, especially those concerning collabo-
rations between different actors, including business models and non-market-driven
realities.
For example, Vinuesa and colleagues did not find much published empirical evi-
dence of AI as an enabler or inhibitor of SDG #17 (global partnership for sustain-
able development) and its various targets.2 Nonetheless, they sustain that several
initiatives that focus on the humanistic side of AI can be a means to achieve effec-
tive public-private and civil society partnerships and policy coherence for sustain-
able development (Vinuesa et al. 2020, supplementary data 1).3 They also recognised
that AI-driven systems are not so easily subject to the oversight or accountability of
public experts. However, such systems are massively entering and influencing core
social domains, such as healthcare, criminal justice, education and so on (Vinuesa
et al. 2020, supplementary data 1; Reisman and al. 2018). Sætra asserted that SDG
#17 is part of a group of goals on which AI have minor or no direct effects and lim-
ited indirect effects; nonetheless, he recognises that ‘AI play a key role as the sub-
ject matter both for regulations and policy for the partnership for sustainable
development’ (Sætra 2021b, 15, italics by authors).
Among the initiatives that monitor AI4SG’s advancements, the Oxford Initiative
on AIxSDG is a curated database of AI projects addressing SDGs launched in 2019
(Cowls et al. 2021). Presently, in its online repository, four projects can be found
that promote the ‘partnership for the goals’ SDG; however, those ‘partnerships’ are
related either to specialised communities, such as those of the astronomers and hos-
pital staff or national policies and governments.4 However, SDG #17 should also
aim at promoting global partnership and cooperation built upon shared values and
principles. In particular, concerning technology, SDG #17 established in target 17.6
the Technology Facilitation Mechanism (TFM), as already mentioned. TFM
intended to be a multi-stakeholder mechanism including UN agencies, governments
and various stakeholders to deliver science, technology and innovation (STI) for the
SDGs (UN 2015, para. 123). Unfortunately, as highlighted in the Spotlight Global
Civil Society Report on the 2030 Agenda and SDGs, TFM is still lacking an online
platform due to the absence of dedicated funding and has an ‘untapped potential’,
since it should not be a forum only for proponents of technology but include the
direct participation of people that are affected by it (Daño 2019, 188). In a few
2
Vineusa et al. (2020) found evidence of positive AI contributions on 15% of SDG 17’s subgoals
and negative contributions to 5% of its subgoals.
3
Specifically, Vineusa et al. (2020) referred to Open AI (project description: https://openai.com/);
partnership for AI (project description: https://www.partnershiponai.org/); AINow (project descrip-
tion: https://ainowinstitute.org/); AI Sustainability Centre in Stockholm (project description: http://
www.aisustainability.org/). They also provided reference to Smith & Neupane (2018) and Greene
et al. (2019).
4
Oxford Initiative on AIxSDGs. https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/research/centres-and-initiatives/oxford-
initiative-aisdgs. On the projects related to the promotion of SDG 17, see https://www.aiforsdgs.
org/all-projects?sustainable_development%5B%5D=1356&search=d (Last access 4
October 2021).
words, we can say that more ‘societal deliberations’5 on how sociotechnical systems
are now impacting norms and SDGs and on how this process should be regulated
are still needed and still have vague implementation.
Collective responsibility for sustainability, especially in the digital era of Big
Tech corporations, cannot underestimate the role that private-public partnerships
(PPPs) and multi-stakeholder initiatives as mechanisms may have in fostering social
responses to emerging technology changes and also in redistributing power and
resources in more equal modalities, both nationally and globally. Moreover, when
such PPPs and initiatives are placed in a proper and democratic regulatory-
institutional environment, they can provide better infrastructures to citizens and
improve interrelated capacities between different groups, which should be consid-
ered integral parts of a whole.
However, the mechanisms and conceptual frameworks for benchmarking such
PPPs and multi-stakeholder engagement are mostly vacuous or altogether side-lined
in these discussions. This paper proposes the concept of a ‘social license to operate’
to better frame how multiple stakeholders come to trust and, consequently, accept
an industry’s legitimate position to operate in their community. The following sec-
tion defines this social license to operate as well as why it is required in the dig-
ital age.
4 The Need for a ‘Social License to Operate’

in the Digital Age
The notion of a ‘social license to operate’ (SLO) is not new: indeed, it has increas-
ingly taken a fundamental role in the business literature on sustainability over the
years. It was coined concerning the mining and extractive industry but is now used
in a range of other industry sectors, and it is generally defined as the acceptance and
trust gained by a business model or corporation by the community in which it is
placed and operates (Moffat and et al. 2015; Komnitsas 2020). Having a social
license to operate means having legitimacy from internal stakeholders and outside
stakeholders, and the greater community. Most importantly, it means identifying a
business model as a proper social institution: beyond economic and market consid-
erations, every business model is a social entity and thus subject to public account-
ability and public control (Sale 2019; Melé and Armengou 2015). Social license
means also going beyond laws and regulations positioned within the legal system
since it is related to credibility and social permission practices. As such, the concept
of a social license is based on building and structuring trust and consent of people
and communities affected by the business model’s actions at stake.
Social license theorists do not align on understanding and measuring the value of
social license (Gehman and et al. 2017). Nonetheless, the term’s popularity is a sign
5
Such a term is used also by Daño (2019), 188.
of a general trend towards stakeholder involvement and democratic procedures in

the industry literature. One of the most used presentations of social license is the
one elaborated by Boutilier and Thomson in the so-called multi-level pyramid
model (Boutilier and Thomson 2011). In this model, theorists distinguish between
three levels: legitimacy, credibility and trust. SLO includes these three normative
components: legitimacy as conformity to norms, credibility as the power to elicit
belief and trust as the willingness to be vulnerable to risk or loss on the part of other
actors (Thomson and Joyce 2008). Legitimacy is a necessary component of accep-
tance by stakeholder networks,6 while credibility means that those networks also
approve a business model with formal negotiations or agreements on roles and
responsibilities. Finally, trust implies a sense of co-ownership or identification
between stakeholders, community and business models through the means of col-
laborations or shared experiences (Gehman and et al. 2017; Boutilier and Thomson
2011; Thompson and Boutilier 2011) (Fig. 3).
Even if explored concerning well-established corporate frameworks, a discourse
on the social license to operate can be extended beyond those sectors for measuring
its adaptability and feasibility in the context of new forms of corporations. Thus, for
example, introducing sociological considerations into the business literature of sus-
tainability can constitute an asset in the current approaches to AI4SG since these
considerations can place an explanatory emphasis on possible trustworthy behav-
iours by the part of private Big Techs that have an extensive public impact and
should account for it.
Until now, few scholars have been concerned with a social license in relation to
new digital business models and innovation. For example, some have individuated
in social license a possible constraint on regulatory arbitrage, i.e. taking advantage
Fig. 3 The pyramid model of SLO. (Reproduced from Boutilier and Thomson 2011: 2)
6
Boutilier and Thomson speak of ‘stakeholder networks’ to include many actors that are affected
or affect business models beyond and above specific and local communities, such as international
human rights activists and others (Boutilier and Thomson 2011, 2–3).
of gaps in existing regulations, by the part of companies such as Facebook or Uber

(Pollman 2019), while others have explored how the failure to account for the inher-
ently public nature of corporate actions of private business models such as Uber –
regardless of whether an existing ‘legal’ license exists – can result in the loss of
‘social’ license (Sale 2019). Finally, others have highlighted the need to earn a
social license for big data initiatives during the pandemic (Shaw and et al. 2020) or
have specifically introduced the issue of SLO in the governance and responsible
management of the risk of digital corporations, but without providing straightfor-
ward suggestions on how to implement in concrete terms SLO in Big Techs’ proac-
tive strategic business models (Verbin 2020, Chap. 8).7
Along those lines, this chapter argues that it is of pivotal importance to initiate a
reflection on new global digital business models through the lens of what kind of
social license they need. In particular, the sociological literature on the social license
can provide a valuable and concrete contribution to the question of sustainability of
Big Tech corporations for several reasons.
First, SLO could be an integral part of a corporate strategy that may assist socio-
technical systems involving AI-driven systems to stay ahead of legal regulation and
proactively endorse a collective responsibility for sustainability in the digital era.
Indeed, as a form of long-term and self-regulation that implies fair and legitimate
procedures, it may contribute to the formation and ongoing evaluation of digital
business models’ socio-political rights and responsibilities. SLO can assist such
digital business models in earning social acceptability, programmatically including
novel accounts of transparency and accountability relationships and avoiding epi-
sodes of corruption or malpractice into their policies and business strategies.
Second, the predominance of the economy of credibility sustained by SLO can
be an effective tool for digital business models to ensure sustainable business
growth. Unlike traditional business models that rely on supply and demand mecha-
nisms, Big Tech has its users and consumer groups at their core, as already noted.
Therefore, internal forms of control that paid attention to social license would be
crucial, with the aim to create bilateral processes of change, through an ongoing
dialogue with users’ communities and relevant stakeholders; the understanding of
users’ and consumers’ changing expectations; the deployment of regular reporting
requirements, mitigation and monitoring programs; and so on.
Indeed, SLO means searching not only for acceptance but also for approval from
the community: beyond the participation of shareholders, SLO aims at investing in
the community, with corporate social initiatives that support or raise awareness on
specific social causes through the mechanisms of employment policies, employee
training, marketing or funds and volunteering (see on this Lee and Kotler 2005;
Boutlier 2017). Much of this aspect of SLO, in terms of being operationalised, viz.
AI4SG norms, can be achieved via full life cycle monitoring of systems, allowing
7
See also Joseph, L.2018 Why the tech giants of Silicon Valley must rebuild trust after explosive
beginnings available at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/why-move-fast-and-break-
things-doesn-t-cut-it-anymore/ (last access October 4, 2021).
designers and stakeholders to continually monitor system inputs/outputs and restrict

use and redesign if necessary (c.f., Umbrello and van de Poel, 2021).
Finally, SLO may serve as a powerful practise in the public-private dialectic. The
risky decisions of a Big Tech may extend well beyond it and reach the general pub-
lic, and, as scholars already point out, AI effects can be analysed not only in terms
of micro and meso but also in terms of macro levels (Sætra 2021a, b). Following
SLO operationalisation, social legitimacy and credibility that should be granted to
Big Tech for regulating and delivering essential services related to common goods
such as health, security and many others need to be also accompanied by a more
enduring value: trust. Trust is a matter of value alignment and of establishing prin-
ciples and norms on which collectively rely on. Social license is often connected to
the theories of the social contract (Demuijnck and Fasterling 2016).
If we want to translate this discourse in the digital realm, it sheds light on the fact
that we are embedded in a network of mutual relationships between multiple par-
ties. Those parties have different levels of powers and values but should be equitably
enabled to flourish and be responsible for their actions. The literature on SLO criti-
cally engages with the issue of how to balance power relations, with the involve-
ment of a multiplicity of cross-sectoral authorities and agencies, including business
models, state or regional governments, international expert agencies, NGOs and
many others (Meesters and Behagel 2017). Proposing co-evolution and co-regulation
mechanisms and tools constitutes a first step in developing an enduring relationship
of trust between those parties.
For example, among those mechanisms and tools, we can insert reports on com-
mitments produced by business models that can be monitored and overseen by
NGOs or other third-party actors (Morrison 2014; Blair et al. 2008); collaboration
between business models and external stakeholders, such as policymakers or civil
society organisation, to address cultural and social issues or human rights viola-
tions; and cooperation with external stakeholders, such as experts or governments,
to engage or communicate with the public more effectively and transparently or to
manage environmental, social, governance risks and so on. If ‘institutionalised
trust’ lacks – which in SLO theories implies that the interactional relationships
between business models and stakeholders’ institutions are based on an ‘enduring
regard’ for each other’s interests (Boutilier and Thomson 2011, 4) – psychological
identification is understood as a status of well-established trust is unlikely.
Losing LSO is a socio-political risk. Big Tech corporations have already been
investigated for violations of trust: from breaching competition and monopoly laws
and abusing their dominance in the online market8 to the breach of users’ privacy
rights, as demonstrated in the case of the Cambridge Analytica Scandal (Isaak and
Hanna 2018). Moreover, a kind of ‘regulatory inertia’ in recent years has placed Big
8
See, for example, Schulze 2019. If you want to know what a US tech crackdown may look like,
check out what Europe did, June 7, 2019, available at https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/07/how-
google-facebook-amazon-and-apple-faced-eu-tech-antitrust-rules.html (last access October
4, 2021).
Techs in a position to operate without the need to ensure compliance to international

principles or considerations of sustainable development (Truby 2020).
However, beyond possible legal, regulatory intervention, it would undoubtedly
be significantly beneficial to ensure trustworthiness and public scrutiny on the deci-
sions and actions of Big Techs’ new digital business model, especially in modalities
that make the latter understand their responsibility towards society. The ‘social
license to operate’ can be adopted as a practice to foster global collaboration and
coordination among different spheres: private business models, AI researchers,
AI-based initiatives focusing on SDGs, institutions, legislators, policymakers and
civil society at large. If further implemented and developed, its theoretical frame-
work can represent a more comprehensive approach to the sustainability of new
digital business models, paving the way for being synthesised in a practical method-
ology that assists AI projects, initiatives and sociotechnical systems in their support
of SDGs.
5 Conclusion
The AI for Social Good norms are a growing set of design imperatives that aim at
designing AI towards the social good. However, despite many projects exploring
how these norms can be operationalised towards achieving higher-order values like
those of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, they include little guidance for
how their uptake can be increased by the existing business models of Big Tech cor-
porations. The tech giants are arguably the most impactful market players when it
comes to the digital age. However, they operate seemingly autonomously despite
the impacts they have on multiple stakeholders.
This chapter looks at the types of business models that have a greater propensity
to operationalise and forward the AI4SG norms towards supporting global goals
like those of the UN SDGs. In doing so, we introduced the concept of the ‘social
license to operate’ (SLO). This sociological notion has its origin in the literature on
the extractive and mining industry, but that has now become increasingly used in the
sustainability literature across several different industries. We argued that SLO can
better capture the criteria necessary for multiple and diverse stakeholders to col-
laborate and, mainly, to trust industry giants and therefore accept their operation in
their communities. Indeed, we demonstrated that SLO can be a practice that, relying
on and further developing normative criteria such as legitimacy, credibility and
trust, would undoubtedly be significantly beneficial to ensure trustworthiness and
public scrutiny on the decisions and actions of new digital business models. Overall,
SLO could be a powerful social tool to induce such digital business models the
adoption of responsible, sustainable and proactive business strategies.
Acknowledgements The content of this publication has not been approved by the United Nations
and does not reflect the views of the United Nations or its officials or Member States.
References
Amnesty International. 2014. Amnesty International Launches New App to Fight Attack, Kidnap
and Torture. Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/06/
amnesty-international-launches-new-app-fight-attack-kidnap-and-torture/
Ballew, Matthew T., Matthew H. Goldberg, Seth A. Rosenthal, Abel Gustafson, and Anthony
Leiserowitz. 2019. Systems Thinking as a Pathway to Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes
Through an Ecological Worldview. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (17):
8214–8219. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1819310116.
Blair, Margaret M. 2008. The New Role for Assurance Services in Global Commerce. Journal of
Corporation Law 325. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/30/.
Boutilier, Robert G. 2017. A Measure of the Social License to Operate for Infrastructure and
Extractive Projects. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3204005.
Boutilier, Robert G., and Ian Thomson. 2011. Modelling and Measuring the Social License to
Operate: Fruits of a Dialogue Between Theory and Practice. Socialicense.Com. https://sociali-
cense.com/publications/Modelling%20and%20Measuring%20the%20SLO.pdf
Briscoe, Patricia. 2015. Global Systems Thinking in Education to End Poverty: Systems Leaders
with a Concerted Push. International Studies In Educational Administration (Commonwealth
Council For Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)) 43 (3): 5–19. https://
www.academia.edu/34485128/Global_Systems_Thinking_in_Education_to_End_Poverty_
Systems_Leaders_with_a_Concerted_Push.
Capasso, Marianna, and Steven Umbrello. 2021. Responsible Nudging for Social Good: New
Healthcare Skills for AI-Driven Digital Personal Assistants. Medicine, Health Care And
Philosophy 25: 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-021-10062-z.
Cowls, Josh, Andreas Tsamados, Mariarosaria Taddeo, and Luciano Floridi. 2021. A Definition,
Culpepper, Pepper D., and Kathleen Thelen. 2019. Are We All Amazon Primed? Consumers and
the Politics of Platform Power. Comparative Political Studies 53 (2): 288–318. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0010414019852687.
Daño, Neth. 2019. SDG 17. Can the Technology Facilitation Mechanism Help Deliver the Sdgs
in the Era of Rapid Technological Change? Spotlight on Sustainable Development 2019.
United Nations. https://www.2030spotlight.org/sites/default/files/spot2019/Spotlight_
Innenteil_2019_web_sdg17.pdf.
Demuijnck, Geert, and Björn Fasterling. 2016. The Social License to Operate. Journal of Business
Ethics 136 (4): 675–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2976-7.
Department of Health and Social Care. 2019. NHS Health Information Available
Through Amazon’s Alexa. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/
nhs-health-information-available-through-amazon-s-alexa.
Di Vaio, Assunta, Rosa Palladino, Rohail Hassan, and Octavio Escobar. 2020. Artificial Intelligence
Literature Review. Journal of Business Research 121: 283–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2020.08.019.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and
Technology. 2021. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and
Amending Certain Union Legislative Acts Com/2021/206 Final. European Commission.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206.
Floridi, Luciano, Josh Cowls, J., Thomas C. King, and Mariarosaria Taddeo. 2020. How to
Design AI for Social Good: Seven Essential Factors. Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (3):
1771–1796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00213-5
Gazzaneo, Lucia, Antonio Padovano, and Steven Umbrello. 2020. Designing Smart Operator 4.0
For Human Values: A Value Sensitive Design Approach. Procedia Manufacturing 42: 219–226.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.02.073.
Gehman, Joel, Lianne M. Lefsrud, and Stewart Fast. 2017. Social License to Operate: Legitimacy
by Another Name? Canadian Public Administration 60 (2): 293–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/
capa.12218.
Greene, Daniel, Anna Lauren Hoffmann, and Luke Stark. 2019. Better, Nicer, Clearer, Fairer: A
Critical Assessment of the Movement for Ethical Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning.
Hawaii International Conference On System Sciences. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/59651.
Isaak, Jim, and Mina J. Hanna. 2018. User Data Privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and
Privacy Protection. Computer 51 (8): 56–59. https://doi.org/10.1109/mc.2018.3191268.
Joseph, Lauren. 2018. Why the Tech Giants of Silicon Valley Must Rebuild Trust After
Explosive Beginnings. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/
why-move-fast-and-break-things-doesn-t-cut-it-anymore/.
Kersting, Kristian, Zhao Xu, Mirwaes Wahabzada, Christian Bauckhage, Christian Thurau,
Christoph Roemer, Agim Ballvora, Uwe Rascher, Jens Leon, and Lutz Pluemer. 2012. Pre-
symptomatic Prediction of Plant Drought Stress Using Dirichlet-Aggregation Regression
on Hyperspectral Images. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial
Intelligence (AAAI’12), 302–308. AAAI Press.
Komnitsas, Konstantinos. 2020. Social License to Operate in Mining: Present Views and Future
Trends. Resources 9 (6): 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9060079.
Kotler, Philip, and Nancy Lee. 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for
Your Company and Your Cause. Hoboken: Wiley.
Longo, Francesco, Letizia Nicoletti, and Antonio Padovano. 2017. Smart Operators in Industry
4.0: A Human-Centered Approach to Enhance Operators’ Capabilities and Competencies
Within the New Smart Factory Context. Computers & Industrial Engineering 113: 144–159.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.09.016.
Ma, Wei, Kendall Nowocin, Niraj Marathe, and George H. Chen. 2019. An Interpretable Produce
Price Forecasting System for Small and Marginal Farmers in India Using Collaborative
Filtering and Adaptive Nearest Neighbors. Proceedings of the Tenth International
Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3287098.3287100.
Meesters, Marieke Evelien, and Jelle Hendrik Behagel. 2017. The Social Licence to Operate:
Ambiguities and the Neutralization of Harm in Mongolia. Resources Policy 53: 274–282.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.07.006.
Melé, Domènec, and Jaume Armengou. 2015. Moral Legitimacy in Controversial Projects and Its
Relationship with Social License to Operate: A Case Study. Journal of Business Ethics 136 (4):
Moffat, Kieren, Justine Lacey, Airong Zhang, and Sina Leipold. 2015. The Social Licence to
Operate: A Critical Review. Forestry 89 (5): 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpv044.
Morrison, John. 2014. Government Approval Not Enough, Businesses Need
Social License. Ihrb.Org. https://www.ihrb.org/focus-areas/commodities/
government-approval-not-enough-businesses-need-social-license.
Murphy, Colleen, Paolo Gardoni, Hassan Bashir, Charles E. Harris, and Jr., and Eyad Masad. 2015.
Engineering Ethics For A Globalized World. Switzerland: Springer, Cham.
Pasquale, Frank A. 2015. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and
Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pollman, Elizabeth. 2019. Tech, Regulatory Arbitrage, and Limits. European Business Organization
Law Review 567. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/2567: 567.
Quinn, John, Kevin Leyton-Brown, and Ernest Mwebaze. 2011. Modeling and Monitoring Crop
Disease in Developing Countries. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
25 (1): 1390–1395. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/7811.
Rahman, K. Sabeel. 2018. The New Utilities: Private Power, Social Infrastructure, and the Revival
of the Public Utility Concept. Cardozo Law Review 39 (5): 101–171. http://cardozolawre-
view.com/the-new-utilities-private-power-social-infrastructure-and-the-revival-of-the-public-
utility-concept/.
Rahman, K. Sabeel, and Kathleen Thelen. 2019. The Rise of the Platform Business Model and
the Transformation of Twenty-First-Century Capitalism. Politics and Society 47 (2): 177–204.
Reisman, Dillon, Meredith Whittaker, and Kate Crawford. 2018. Algorithms Are Making
Government Decisions. The Public Needs to Have a Say. American Civil Liberties
Union. https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/
algorithms-are-making-government-decisions.
Sætra, Henrik Skaug. 2021a. A Framework for Evaluating and Disclosing the ESG Related Impacts
of AI with the Sdgs. Sustainability 13 (15): 8503. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158503.
———. 2021b. AI in Context and the Sustainable Development Goals: Factoring in the
Unsustainability of the Sociotechnical System. Sustainability 13 (4): 1738. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su13041738.
Sale, Hillary A. 2019. Social License And Publicness. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=3403706.
Schulze, Elizabeth. 2019. If You Want to Know What a US Tech Crackdown May Look Like, Check
Out What Europe Did. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/07/how-google-facebook-
amazon-and-apple-faced-eu-tech-antitrust-rules.html.
Schwan, Gesine. 2019. Sustainable Development Goals: A Call for Global Partnership and
Cooperation. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives For Science And Society 28 (2): 73–73. https://
doi.org/10.14512/gaia.28.2.1.
Sharon, Tamar. 2016. The Googlization of Health Research: From Disruptive Innovation
to Disruptive Ethics. Personalized Medicine 13 (6): 563–574. https://doi.org/10.2217/
pme-2016-0057.
———. 2021. From Hostile Worlds to Multiple Spheres: Towards a Normative Pragmatics of
Justice for the Googlization of Health. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 24 (3): 315–327.
Shaw, James A., Nayha Sethi, and Christine K. Cassel. 2020. Social License for the Use of
Big Data in the COVID-19 Era. Npj Digital Medicine 3 (1): 128. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41746-020-00342-y.
Smith, Matthew, and Sujaya Neupane. 2018. Artificial Intelligence and Human Development:
Toward a Research Agenda. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. http://hdl.
handle.net/10625/56949.
Srnicek, Nick. 2016. Platform Capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Thompson, Ian, and Robert Boutilier. 2011. Social License to Operate. In SME Mining Engineering
Handbook, 1779–1796. Littleton, CO: Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration.
Thompson, Ian, and Susan Joyce. 2008. The Social Licence to Operate: What It Is and Why Does It
Seem so Difficult to Obtain? Presentation, Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada
Convention, Toronto.
Tomašev, Nenad, Julien Cornebise, Frank Hutter, Shakir Mohamed, Angela Picciariello,
Bec Connelly, Danielle C.M. Belgrave, et al. 2020. AI for Social Good: Unlocking the
Opportunity for Positive Impact. Nature Communications 11 (1): 71. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41467-020-15871-z.
Truby, Jon. 2020. Governing Artificial Intelligence to Benefit the UN Sustainable Development
Goals. Sustainable Development 28 (4): 946–959. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2048.
Umbrello, Steven, and Ibo van de Poel. 2021. Mapping Value Sensitive Design Onto AI for Social
Good Principles. AI And Ethics 1 (3): 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00038-3.
United Nations. 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Sdgs.Un.Org. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.
van de Poel, Ibo. 2020. Embedding Values in Artificial Intelligence (AI) Systems. Minds and
Machines 30 (3): 385–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09537-4.
Vargo, Deedra, Lin Zhu, Briana Benwell, and Zheng Yan. 2020. Digital Technology Use During
COVID – 19 Pandemic: A Rapid Review. Human Behavior And Emerging Technologies 3 (1):
13–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.242.
Verbin, Ivri. 2020. Corporate Responsibility in the Digital Age. London: Routledge.
Vernim, Susanne, Harald Bauer, Erwin Rauch, Marianne Thejls Ziegler, and Steven Umbrello.
2022. A Value Sensitive Design Approach for Designing AI-Based Worker Assistance Systems
in Manufacturing. Vol. 200, 505. Procedia Computer Science.
von Lücken, Christian, and Ricardo Brunelli. 2008. Optimal Crops Selection Using Multiobjective
Evolutionary Algorithms. Proceedings of the Twentieth Innovative Applications of Artificial
Intelligence Conference: 1751–1756. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v30i2.2212.
You, Jiaxuan, Xiaocheng Li, Melvin Low, David Lobell, and Stefano Ermon. 2017. Deep Gaussian
Process for Crop Yield Prediction Based on Remote Sensing Data. In Proceedings of the Thirty-
First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’17), 4559–4565. AAAI Press.
Zysman, John, and Martin Kenney. 2018. The Next Phase in the Digital Revolution. Communications
of the ACM 61 (2): 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173550.
Part II
AIxSDGs: Existing and Potential Use
Cases
A Legal Identity for All Through Artificial
Intelligence: Benefits and Drawbacks
in Using AI Algorithms to Accomplish
SDG 16.9
Mirko Forti
Abstract The unavailability of identification documents is a determining factor

leading to social and economic exclusion for undocumented people. They cannot
interact with public bodies and private subjects in an official way, so they cannot
access services (healthcare, education, social welfare, etc.) or obtain formal employ-
ment. This sort of ‘identity gap’ between undocumented people and individuals
with ID documents exacerbates socioeconomic discrepancies and inequalities and
does not permit inclusive social development. Artificial intelligence represents a
valid instrument in accomplishing the goal to provide legal identity for all. AI algo-
rithms could take care of several related tasks, such as identity authentication/vali-
dation, data matching and storage. However, using AI tools to collect and manage
identity-related data comes with risks and drawbacks worth mentioning. Social and
cultural influences contribute to the development of personal identity that is not
limited to official documents. Thus, AI-driven technologies deployed in identity
management should also consider such elements in performing their tasks. This
chapter argues for adequate human rights safeguards when deploying AI algorithms
to manage identity-related data. More specifically, this contribution calls for human
oversight mechanisms and the periodical recalibration of such algorithms to address
mutating environmental variables in the development of personal identity.
Keywords Identity · Artificial intelligence · Migrants · Non-discrimination ·

Person · Self
M. Forti (*)
University of Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy
254 M. Forti
1 Introduction
The unavailability of legal identity is an urgent issue. Civil registration offices may
not be able to provide everyone with identification documents for several reasons:
the lack of appropriate infrastructures to manage identity-related data, the impossi-
bility to reach out to individuals in rural areas, natural disasters destroying public
archives and persecutions on a discriminatory basis are only a few factors that could
cause the exclusion of specific individuals from official identification and birth reg-
istration, especially in developing countries.
Holding a legal identity is a prerequisite to being a recognised member of civil
society. The lack of identification documents is a determining factor of social and
economic exclusion. More specifically, undocumented people could not access the
same rights and opportunities as any other individual (Gelb and Clark 2013). They
cannot interact with public bodies or private entities, so they are unable to access
services like healthcare, education, social welfare, formal employment and more.
This sort of ‘identity gap’ between undocumented people and registered individuals
exacerbates socioeconomic discrepancies and inequalities and does not permit
inclusive social development.
According to the Identification for Development (ID4D) programme, an initia-
tive of the World Bank to address digital identity issues, about 1 billion people still
do not have official proof of their identity (Global ID4D Dataset 2021). One in two
women from low-income countries does not have ID, and they can’t be part of pub-
lic society. Vulnerable segments of the population, like women or disabled persons,
may face severe difficulties to obtain ID credentials (ID4D Annual Report 2020).
The United Nations aims to provide every individual with a legal identity by the
year 2030, according to the Social Development Goal (SDG) 16.9, overcoming such
disparities and divergences.
Emerging technologies, namely, artificial intelligence, could help national gov-
ernments and public bodies to accomplish SDG 16.9. AI algorithms could take care
of several related tasks, such as identity authentication/validation, data matching
and storage. However, using AI tools to collect and manage identity-related data
comes with risks and drawbacks worth mentioning. The working routine and inher-
ent features of artificial intelligence could exacerbate already existing discrimina-
tory profiles about identity issues. And, first of all, AI algorithms need to understand
what is identity.
This chapter addresses the regulatory environment and political framework of AI
devices to provide legal identity for all. Its working hypothesis is that artificial intel-
ligence could represent a valuable instrument in implementing SDG 16.9, but the
deployment of AI instruments for identification purposes should be carried on
accordingly to solid legal safeguards and in light of specific cultural and societal
considerations.
The first part of the chapter introduces the concept of identity. It highlights how
this issue is not only a matter of identification documents but brings together several
other aspects. More specifically, this section addresses how cultural, social and
A Legal Identity for All Through Artificial Intelligence: Benefits and Drawbacks… 255
environmental variables could affect the inherent meaning and ontological structure
of identity itself. The second part illustrates the role of AI algorithms in reaching
SDG 16.9. More specifically, it will consider practical examples regarding the
implementation of AI-based software to collect and manage identity-related data to
investigate their human rights implications. This chapter will focus on the migratory
context because of the importance of identification in the management of migration
flows. Furthermore, undocumented people are an urgent concern: according to the
International Organization for Migration (IOM), 10–15% of migrants hold an irreg-
ular status in the 2020.1 The last part of the chapter deals with the positive sides and
potential drawbacks of using AI algorithms for identification purposes and provides
a few legal and political recommendations to create a safe and secure environment
for any individual.
2 The Concept of Identity: External Variables

and Internal Dimension
The concept of identity indicates the inherent features and elements that distinguish
an individual or a social group from others (Al Tamimi 2018). Thus, it is a relational
notion that addresses a specific frame of reference as a term of comparison. More
specifically, identity explains relationships between members of society based on
several variables like cultural background (cultural identity), nationality (national
identity), ethnicity (ethnic identity) and religion (religious identity). Identity is the
result of a human elaboration: how individuals think about themselves
(Mutanen 2010).
The notion of personal identity brings together the different environments and
social groups in which individuals conduct their own lives. Thus, the construction
process of self occurs in a specific framework that is not uniquely determined and
could change over time (Mutanen 2007). A man could play several roles throughout
his life: son, friend, husband, worker, dad and many others. However, he remains
the same person through all these experiences.
Philip Riley explains in this regard how personal identity is composed of two
parts: person and self (Riley 2003). The first term addresses peculiar traits and ele-
ments that feature an individual in a specific social group. In other words, person
indicates social identity. On the other hand, self refers to the intimate, subjective and
personal characteristics of an individual: the inner core of a human being.
On the same line, Stuart Hall distinguishes two approaches to the notion of iden-
tity (Hall 1990). The first one encompasses the inherent nature of a person or a
community. As far as a social group is concerned, this approach indicates a shared
frame of reference that identifies its members (e.g. common national origins, shared
history). The second one intends identity as the result of a continual construction
1
IOM World Migration Report, https://worldmigrationreport.iom.int/2020 (last access 23/12/2021).
256 M. Forti
process. Factors and variables like history, power and economy play a determining
role in shaping the identity of an individual being or a social group. Its construction
process finds its basis in the contraposition between the inner dimension and the
external social space: person and self according to the words of Riley.
Identities do not adhere to a shared and immutable essence. Elemental opposi-
tions within the same framework of reference foster the development of a con-
sciousness of self (Redman 2000). In other words, personal identity finds its
significance from relations with different experiences and codes understood as ‘oth-
ers’. Thus, the concept of ‘national citizens’ has its meaning in contrast with ‘immi-
grants’, likewise ‘religious people’ with ‘atheists’. This definition and construction
process highlights the inherent precariousness of identity formation (Grossberg
1996). ‘Others’ can represent an element of instability for the inner meaning of a
concept itself. There are several examples in different contexts in this regard; the
idea of artificial intelligence is radically challenging the traditional definition of
human intelligence, and, in the same way, migratory flows are transforming national
identities. Identities find their meaning through a process of exclusion that places
extraneous elements outside of a specific category. Notwithstanding, these alien
features play a fundamental role in defining what is inside the identity label. Du Gay
explains this mechanism as ‘constitutive outside’ (Du Gay 1996), while Al Tamimi
talks about ‘excess of identity’ (Al Tamimi 2018).
The decision about what is inside and outside the identity categorisation is an act
of power. It is not the recognition of an objective and immutable state of nature but
the construction of a hierarchical relationship between the elements taken into con-
sideration (Laclau 1990). The dominating subject chooses what excesses a given
framework of reference. Thus, the Ancient Romans considered foreigners ‘barbar-
ians’ and Christians called Muslims ‘infidels’.
This brief explanation indicates how external influences can shape the identifica-
tion process of an individual or a social group. The concept of identity brings
together self-awareness (how individuals perceive themselves) with social reputa-
tion (how other members of a collectivity consider a specific individual) (Jenkins
1997). According to this, different social, cultural and environmental backgrounds
can generate different approaches to the idea of identity.
2.1 Different Societies, Different Identities
Individualism is a prominent feature in the traditional paradigm of Western culture

(Solomon 1994). Single persons maintain their peculiar individualities in respect of
their social group (Johnson 1985). The idea of privacy intended as the ‘right to be
let alone’ is a paradigmatic example in this regard (Warren and Brandeis 1890). In
other words, the right to privacy is a safeguard for the individual from external influ-
ences (Westin 1968). Mauss argues that individual autonomy is a philosophical
elaboration typical of Western thought (Leacock 1954). More specifically, the
concept of human beings implies a moral status inherently linked to humanness.

Thus, according to this vision, all the individuals are accountable for their actions.
However, an individualistic approach is not the only one possible to address the
notion of identity. Non-Western societies adopt different philosophical elaborations.
The perspective of the African people of Tallensi focusses on the participation to
social life to assess the role of a person in the public society (La Fontaine 1985).
More specifically, they approve a life spent according to social conventions as a
fundamental requirement for achieving a recognised personality in the social group
of reference. Thus, according to the Tallensi, personhood is the result of a sum of
statuses (being a husband, having children, etc.). Kemetic philosophy, that finds its
origins in Ancient Egypt, holds that the individual is the centre of the community.
Individuals find personal fulfilment as members of a collective and through actions
aimed at social well-being (Karenga 1999). Likewise, the African philosophy
Ubuntu addresses the individual as a functional part of the social group. The word
Ubuntu has different meanings according to the specific cultural and social back-
ground, but it generally indicates values like solidarity and generosity
(Kamwangamalu 1999). The Confucian tradition considers the human being as the
centre of different social relationships and not as a separate unit (Ho 1995).
According to this philosophy, humans should pursue the value of Ren, intended as
kindness and benevolence, in order to be compassionate human beings (Cheng 1998).
This brief analysis explains how the concept of identity is constantly changing
and how external variables could shape it accordingly to mutating circumstances.
National governments should carry on identification procedures for their citizens
that address these peculiarities. In other words, the effort to accomplish SDG 16.9
of providing identification documents for everyone should consider that identity is
not a static concept but an evolving idea. How to encapsulate something constantly
changing in official documents? Emerging technologies could represent a valid
answer in these regards. However, the deployment of technological solutions,
mainly AI-based ones, for identification purposes shall respect the international
human rights framework and consider the ever-changing nature of identity.
3 Artificial Intelligence and Identity
AI-driven devices could carry on several identity-related procedures. More specifi-

cally, they can perform identity checks by managing interoperable databases.
Furthermore, AI tools can conduct facial recognition operations through biometric
data to identify undocumented people. These are only a few examples of how artifi-
cial intelligence could play a fundamental role in such a context and help national
authorities to save time and money while carrying on identification procedures.
Despite these possible advantages, the use of artificial intelligence technologies
entails risks for the identity rights and free autonomy of the people involved.
The deployment of AI-based devices in the migration context for identification
purposes is a helpful case study to understand the potential impact of artificial
258 M. Forti
intelligence on the elaboration of identity. More specifically, this analysis investi-

gates how AI-driven tools could shape self-awareness and how individuals perceive
themselves in a context that brings together people from different cultural, social
and environmental backgrounds. Furthermore, it will point out the human rights
implications related to the use of such technologies.
3.1 AI-Based Identification Procedures

in the Migration Context
National authorities and international organisations commonly use AI tools to man-

age migratory flows and identify undocumented people.
The Canadian government deploys AI technologies to assess immigrants’ appli-
cations to enter the national territory (Molnar and Gill 2018). The aim is to identify
any potential signal of fraudulent declaration and risks for national security and
public order. Algorithms collect and process data from multiple sources (e.g. appli-
cations, interviews during the migration management process, etc.) to provide
authorities (e.g. border guards, tribunals, administrative courts) with outcomes that
could help their decision-making process (e.g. granting a VISA).
The United States border authorities deploy AI-based surveillance tools to patrol
national borders with Mexico (Solon 2018). Drones, cameras and sensors help
guards and agents to detect illegal cross-border movements. National governments
and law enforcement agencies often justify AI technologies in managing migration
flows to prevent terrorist attacks. The US Extreme Vetting programme has this goal
(Glaser 2017). National governments and law enforcement agencies often justify AI
technologies in managing migration flows to prevent terrorist attacks. The US
Extreme Vetting programme has this goal. Automated decision-making systems
assess third-country national applications to enter the US territory. AI algorithms
can perform this evaluation task by collecting and processing data from different
sources (public archives, national agencies databases, social media accounts) to
identify any possible threat to national security. Thus, automated programmes con-
duct an evaluation process of applicants through the analysis of their features, pecu-
liar traits and typical behaviours. The US government successively stops this
migration management initiative due to its human rights implications (Root 2018).
AI algorithms can perform law enforcement-related tasks. The AI-driven facial
recognition software SARI, used by the Italian police, conducts automated
researches through the AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification System) data-
base to identify possible crime suspects.
Automated decision-making systems can help national governments to manage
asylum seekers and refugees on their territory. The Swiss government uses artificial
intelligence algorithms to collect and process data describing the main features
(population, job opportunities, access to services) of different locations to find the
best place to relocate these individuals (Bansak et al. 2018). German border
authorities deploy AI-based technologies for language recognition and real-time

translation (Tangermann 2017). The aim is to foster collaboration and dialogue
between third-country nationals and border guards and agents. Algorithms can also
forecast future migratory movements and allow states and international organisa-
tions in managing flows as best as possible (Carammia and Dumont 2018).
This brief analysis highlights how artificial intelligence plays a crucial role in
managing migratory flows and, more specifically, identifying undocumented people
in such a context. However, the use of AI algorithms could come with a cost. Lack
of transparency, an unclear governance and accountability framework and poten-
tially biased datasets are only a few AI-related risks that could have a tremendous
impact on the human rights safeguards and the process of identity elaboration and
development of individuals involved. A focus on how the European Union is cur-
rently using AI-based technologies in migration management and border control for
identification purposes could be helpful to understand better the potential conse-
quences of artificial intelligence on identity and address the regulatory gaps and
political voids in this regard.
3.2 Artificial Intelligence for Identification Purposes:

The EU Experience
The European Union is carefully considering the deployment of technological

devices to manage migratory flows and identify all the individuals entering its exter-
nal frontiers. Several EU-funded research projects consider the use of AI tools to
perform border control procedures, including identity checks.
The Trespass project implements an AI-based surveillance system with a risk-
based approach. In other words, AI algorithms assess all the entries in the national
territory to individuate any potential signal of risk. The Roborder programme pro-
vides the EU Member States with an automated system of surveillance composed of
robots, drones and driverless vehicles capable of operating on every surface. The
Foldout project implements a platform of real-time surveillance through a system of
sensors and cameras to detect any illegal cross-border movement. The EU also
deploys AI-based software as lie detection systems to investigate potential misprac-
tices in the management of migration flows. More specifically, the iBorderCtrl proj-
ect aims to understand if artificial intelligence could find out false or contradictory
statements made by migrants when dialoguing with EU border guards. An avatar of
a policeman asks different questions about his journey to migrants while cameras
are recording the interview. In the end, the software produces a QR code that points
out if the interviewee tells the truth. In case of false declarations, human border
guards can carry on additional controls. Thus, algorithms consider body language to
detect any suspicious signal of lies. This working routine opens the floor to several
consequences worth mentioning. More specifically, the unregulated use of AI algo-
rithms could produce discriminatory results that may harm the identity of individuals.
260 M. Forti
However, the EU approach to the identification of undocumented people is not

limited to these programmes but involves the implementation of an interoperability
regime between digital archives containing personal data, including biometrics.
This term indicates the identification of individuals through the automated
assessment of their peculiar and inherent physical or behavioural features, like
voice, fingerprints and face (Kloppenburg and Van der Ploeg 2018). The biometric
identification procedure involves different phases. Firstly, the enrolment in the data-
base consists of the creation of a reference image. More specifically, automated
processes scan and collect morphological features of an individual and generate raw
biometric data that transmit the captured biometric sample (Kloppenburg and Van
der Ploeg 2018). This template contains only limited information that the pattern
recognition algorithm analyses according to specified comparison points to recog-
nise the enrolled person. The verification phase occurs when sensors capture another
biometric record to compare with the stored biometric template. This comparison
assesses the similarity between the two biometric samples. If the result of this exam-
ination is above a certain threshold, the biometric system recognises the given per-
son (Jain et al. 2011).
The recently released New Pact on Migration and Asylum2 includes the recasting
of the Eurodac Regulation.3 New norms will allow law enforcement agencies and
police forces to access EU-centralised biometric databases to conduct criminal
investigations. The creation of the Central Identity Repository will make available
the biometric records of millions of third-country nationals coming from outside
Europe to such authorities. The use of biometric data for identification raises many
questions and opens the door to possible abuse. In particular, there is a risk of over-
policing of individuals belonging to minority groups. In general terms, the deploy-
ment of biometric processing activities may exacerbate existing vulnerabilities and
exploit the already occurring hierarchical relationships between individuals.
4 AI-Based Devices for Identification Purposes: Ethical

Concerns and Legal Issues
This first part of the analysis illustrates some possible practical uses of AI-driven
tools in the management of migratory flows. AI algorithms process data to provide
authorities with the identification of an individual. More specifically, AI-based tech-
nologies could recognise individuals through the analysis of morphological features
and externally visible patterns (Espin-Leòn 2020).
2
A brief summary of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum is available at the following link
https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/promoting-our-european-way-life/new-
pact-migration-and-asylum_en (last access 19/12/2021).
3
Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on
the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints.
Floridi (2012) explains there is an ongoing and symbiotic relationship between

the ontological self (what individuals truly are) and the epistemological self (what
individuals think about themselves). Artificial intelligence can’t grasp such a dia-
chronic relationship in its entirety because these technologies only encompass a
static moment. In addition to that, AI algorithms are not able of investigating the
inner core of human identity, called self according to the above-cited Riley. Thus,
these identification operations address features related to external appearances (fin-
gerprints, face features, voice, etc.) and do not consider inner elements like religious
beliefs or political ideas.
In other words, artificial intelligence may not be capable of formulating a com-
plete and exhaustive picture of identity. However, AI-driven operations may have a
tremendous impact on identity development. The deployment of specific technolo-
gies could have a shaping role in their surrounding working context (Kloppenburg
and Van der Ploeg 2018). AI-driven devices produce their outcomes from the elabo-
ration of already collected data. As far as identification procedures are concerned,
such algorithms put individuals in specific categories according to the similarity of
their data (Krupyi 2021a, b). Thus, AI-driven identification procedures produce new
identities mediated by information related to numerous individuals. In other words,
data referring to people already identified by the AI device shape successive identi-
fication operations.
This working routine could lead to discriminatory outcomes and exploit existing
power relationships. The next part of the chapter addresses these issues to under-
stand the risks for identity development with a focus on human rights implications.
4.1 Artificial Intelligence and the Principle

of Non-discrimination in the Context
of Identification Operations
The principle of non-discrimination is a cardinal norm of international human rights

law. Several treaties (e.g. art. 2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UDHR; art.
21 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, ECFR) prohibit the discrimination of indi-
viduals based on factors like gender, race or nationality. However, it is necessary to
reflect on whether the current legal safeguards for non-discrimination are adequate
to address the issues of the artificial intelligence era.
The technical functioning of AI algorithms raises several issues that could impact
people’s lives. The term black box barrier indicates the inherent lack of transpar-
ency and opaqueness of AI-driven software (Bathaee 2018). Human observers are
unable to understand why a given stimulus (input) leads to a specific algorithmic
response (output). In other words, the internal behaviour of the code remains
unknown and incomprehensible to humans. As far as identification operations
deploying artificial intelligence systems are concerned, the black box barrier
262 M. Forti
prevents individuals involved in such procedures from understanding the mecha-

nisms that shape their identities.
The black box issue can be a problem regarding the allocation of responsibilities.
Algorithmic results may be a crucial element in guiding decision-making processes.
The undetectability of the logical rationale behind an algorithmic output makes the
decision based on that output equally incomprehensible. Thus, it would be impos-
sible to understand the reasons behind administrative decisions (e.g. granting a
VISA). As far as the migratory context is concerned, the black box barrier would
prevent outside observers from identifying the reasons for categorising a migrant as
a possible threat.
The black box barrier prevents examination of the nature and correctness of the
data sets processed by the algorithms. It is therefore difficult to detect any bias in
this information. AI-driven software will produce results that amplify and propagate
any biases embedded in the datasets. Introna and Nissenbaum try to open the black
box of biometric recognition algorithmic software to conclude that its functioning
depends crucially on which images the programmers use to train the software
(Introna and Nissenbaum 2010). Prejudices and beliefs may guide the collection of
such data and thus influence the functioning of the AI-driven identification proce-
dures (Magnet 2011).
Algorithmic outcomes addressing identity issues could influence how people
perceive themselves (Krupyi 2021a, b). Artificial intelligence technologies operate
according to embedded values and norms (Akrich 1992), so if a person does not fit
within these principles, AI mathematical model labels him/her as ‘wrong’. Thus,
individuals will presumably be pushed to think that signalled features are not right
and will act accordingly to these perceptions (Johns and Fourcade 2020). The black
box barrier may prevent external observers to detect such encompassed values.
AI-driven systems deployed in identification and recognition procedures operate
through the categorisation of people according to the similarity of their data. Thus,
AI-based mathematical models immediately recognise and flag individuals who do
not fit the statistical majority. This operation risks exacerbating already existing
inequalities, as the further a given identity departs from the benchmarks, the more
wrong AI-driven systems label it (Krupyi 2021a, b).
It is, therefore, necessary to understand who decides the parameters and guide-
lines that determine the functioning of artificial intelligence algorithms and accord-
ing to which criteria. The design and implementation of AI-driven identification
procedures follow the dominant values and principles of the surrounding society. In
this regard, Philips explains that algorithms may face difficulties individuating
divergences between people of other ethnicities than ‘their own’ (Philips et al.
2011). In other words, the geographical location where the algorithm is developed
may affect its ability to recognise faces from different ethnic backgrounds. Empirical
analyses (Philips et al. 2011) show that algorithms developed in a Western context
are more likely to identify people from such geographical locations. Likewise, soft-
ware from the Far East can recognise more easily individuals coming from there.
Pugliese explains how technological instruments deployed to collect data for algo-
rithms may encompass biases and prejudicial attitudes. He brings the example of
biometric scanning where according to him, cameras to record training images may
better perform on white-skinned people (Pugliese 2010).
The first paragraph of this chapter explains how identity development addresses
a specific frame of reference. In other words, identity develops in a way that con-
forms to values and categories that may change according to circumstances.
Artificial intelligence algorithms play a crucial role in identifying what falls within
this framework. The operation of AI algorithms risks normalising the differences
between subjects and flatting individuals to fit them into pre-elaborated statistical
categories (Krupyi 2021a, b). Artificial intelligence can face severe difficulties in
recognising identity features and differences between persons. More specifically,
AI-driven software may not be able to address the several nuances and circum-
stances of reality. AI algorithms produce their outcomes through mathematical
models and putting data into statistical categories. As far as gender dimension is
concerned, this working approach may penalise individuals who do not perceive
themselves as belonging to traditional gender groups. Likewise, people coming
from mixed ethnic origins may face similar challenges (Krupyi 2021a, b).
Thus, the framework of reference (factors like the geographical origin or the
socio-cultural context) has an impact on the algorithmic working routine (Klare
et al. 2012). Artificial intelligence technologies are not inherently neutral, but their
impact depends on their design and implementation in the surrounding environ-
ment. Algorithms may therefore show a tendency towards certain characteristics
and favour specific values (Maguire 2012). More specifically, this attitude can foster
the exclusion of individuals belonging to minorities from the social context. Biased
algorithmic results confirm the social order encompassed by the collected and pro-
cessed data (Kloppenburg and Van der Ploeg 2018) leading the way to self-
reinforcing discriminatory prejudices (Bechmann 2019).
As explained before, algorithmic outputs inevitably influence the process of per-
sonal identity formation and how individuals perceive themselves and their possi-
bilities to self-fulfilment. People who do not conform to the statistical majority will
not have access to further social and economic opportunities because the algorithm
will have identified them as ‘wrong’. In this regard, Niemann’s studies show that
people identified and judged by algorithms as deviating from statistical models may
experience low self-esteem and a lack of recognition of their human dignity
(Niemann 2012).
Thus, the collection of personal data is not a neutral exercise, but it is an activity
with social and political repercussions. It is, therefore, necessary to analyse how the
work of artificial intelligence in the field of personal identification may affect the
privacy of the persons involved.
264 M. Forti
4.2 Artificial Intelligence, Privacy Rights and Identity Issues
The right to privacy is an essential component of personal freedom and autonomy

(Westin 1968). It protects the development of the human being from external inter-
ference. International Human Rights Law states the fundamental importance of the
right to privacy and its influence in several contexts of everyday life (art.12 UDHR,
art. 8 ECFR, art. 8 European Convention on Human Rights – ECHR). More specifi-
cally, data protection is an issue at stake in the digital era when technologies make
it possible to collect and rapidly process an enormous amount of data to know
everything about individuals.
The General Data Protection Regulation4 (hereinafter GDPR) lists a series of
data protection principles (art.5 GDPR). However, the implementation of some of
these norms in the artificial intelligence context may be problematic. The black box
barrier may prevent the application of the transparency principle. In other words, it
may not be technically possible to understand how engineers design algorithmic
databases. The implementation of the principle of transparency requires the feasibil-
ity of inspections addressing the algorithmic working routine (Goodman and
Flaxman 2017). The principle of fairness requires that data processing procedures
operate in a way that the persons involved can reasonably expect (Blasi Casagran
2021). The presence of biases in algorithmic reasoning can lead to unexpected and
unpredictable outcomes. Algorithms require an increasing amount of new data to
improve their analysis capabilities and better perform in their diagnostic tasks.
However, the principle of data minimisation states that only as much information is
processed as is necessary to achieve specific results. The purpose limitation princi-
ple provides that data collected for a specific aim should not be reused for any other
goal. Nevertheless, data contained in the datasets are part of the algorithm
knowledge.
5 Concluding Remarks and Recommendations
The chapter aims to analyse the ethical implications and legal issues related to the
deployment of AI tools in achieving SDG 16.9, i.e. providing every individual with
a legal identity. Identification through digital means is an issue at stake in the
COVID-19 era (The Economist 2020). Trusted digital ID platforms could help the
management of resources towards the ones in need. In addition to that, collecting
data about people with COVID-19 helps scientists and physicians understand pos-
sible developments of the virus.
4
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free move-
ment of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC
Thus, an ethical and legal analysis of the impacts of using emerging technologies
for identification purposes could be helpful. This contribution explains how identity
is not only a matter of official identification documents. Identity is a multiform
concept that encompasses both the inherent and inner elements of individuals and
how they perceive themselves within the social groups of reference. Identity devel-
opment is an ongoing process that evolves and mutates according to the surrounding
environment. However, AI-driven identification procedures can capture only a static
moment of this ongoing process. In addition to that, issues like algorithmic biases
could produce discriminatory outcomes and formulate untruthful identities. This
chapter argues that artificial intelligence could represent a valid instrument in
accomplishing SDG 16.9, but lawmakers and regulators should provide appropriate
human rights safeguards. The analysis of the deployment of AI algorithms in the
migration context for identification purposes highlights the potential risks involved
in the use of such technologies. The recently released Artificial Intelligence Act5
proposal labels AI algorithms for identification tasks as high-risk devices. Thus, it
provides for additional legal requirements to protect individuals from the adverse
effects of these technologies. This chapter argues for the importance of human over-
sight mechanisms to supervise the functioning of AI-driven identification proce-
dures. More specifically, it suggests that independent authorities should periodically
recalibrate the algorithms to take the best possible account of the external variables
mentioned above. In addition to that, this chapter calls for increased transparency
about the design and implementation of algorithmic datasets. It suggests that experts
(e.g. sociologists, anthropologists, etc.) from the environment where algorithms
will act can supervise the collection of the information that will make up the dataset.
References
Akrich, M. 1992. The Descriptiong of Technical Objects. In Shaping Technology/Building Society.

Studies in Sociotechnical Change, ed. W. Bijker and J. Law, 205–224. Cambridge: The
MIT Press.
Al Tamimi, Y. 2018. Human Rights and the Excess of Identity: A Legal and Theoretical Inquiry
into the Notion of Identity in Strasbourg Case Law. Social & Legal Studies 27 (3): 283–298.
Bansak, K., et al. 2018. Improving Refugee Integration Through Data-Driven Algorithmic
Assignment. Science 359 (6373): 325.
Bathaee, Y. 2018. The Artificial Intelligence Black Box and the Failure of Intent and Causation.
Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 31: 889.
Bechmann, A. 2019. Data as Humans. In Human Rights in the Age of Platform, ed. R.F. Jorgensen,
88. Cambridge.
Blasi Casagran, C. 2021. Fundamental Rights Implications of Interconnecting Migrations and
Policing Databases in the EU. Human Rights Law Review 21: 433.
5
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
LAYING DOWN HARMONISED RULES ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE ACT) AND AMENDING CERTAIN UNION LEGISLATIVE ACTS,
COM/2021/206 final.
266 M. Forti
Carammia M., Dumont J.C., Can We Anticipate Future Migration Flows? 16 May 2018., https://
www.oecd.org/els/mig/migration-policy-debate-16.pdf. Last accessed on 10 Dec 2021
Cheng, C.Y. 1998. Transforming Confucian Virtues into Human Rights. In Confucianism and
Human Rights, ed. W.T. De Bary and W. Tu, 154. New York: Columbia University Press.
Du Gay, P. 1996. Who Needs Identity. In Questions of Cultural Identity, ed. P. Du Gay and S. Hall,
1–17. London: SAGE.
Espin-Leòn, A., et al. 2020. Quantification of Cultural Identity Through Artificial Intelligence: A
Case Study on the Waorani Amazonian Etnicity. Soft Computing 24: 11045–11057.
Floridi, L. 2012. Technologies of the Self. Philosophy & Technology 25: 271–273.
Gelb, A., and J. Clark. 2013. Identification for Development: The Biometrics Revolution. Center
for Global Development Working Paper 315, January 2013. https://www.cgdev.org/publica-
tion/identification-development-biometrics-revolution-working-paper-315. Last accessed on
15 Nov 2021.
Glaser A. 2017. ICE Wants to Use Predictive Policing for Its “Extreme Vetting” Program, 8 August
2017, Slate, https://slate.com/technology/2017/08/ice-wants-to-use-predictive-policing-tech-
for-extreme-vetting.html. Last accessed on 10 Dec 2021
Global ID4D Dataset. 2021. https://id4d.worldbank.org/global-dataset. Last accessed on 16
Nov 2021
Goodman, B., and S. Flaxman. 2017. European Union Regulations on Algorithmic Decision-Making
and a Right to Explanation. AI Magazine 38 (3): 50–57. https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08813. Last
accessed on 23 Dec 2021.
Grossberg, L. 1996. Identity and Cultural Studies: Is That All There Is? In Questions of Cultural
Identity, ed. P. Du Gay and S. Hall, 90. London: SAGE.
Hall, S. 1990. Cultural Identity and Diaspora. In Identity: Community, Culture and Difference, ed.
J. Rutherford, 222–237. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Ho, D.Y.F. 1995. Selfhood and Identity in Confucianism, Taoism. Buddism and Hinduism:
Contrast with the West’ Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 25 (2): 115.
ID4D Annual Report. 2020. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/625371611951876490/
pdf/Identification-for-Development-ID4D-2020-Annual-Report.pdf. Last accessed on 16
Nov 2021
Introna, L., and H. Nissenbaum. 2010. Facial Recognition Technology: A Survey of Policy and
Implementation Issues, 4. New York University.
Jain, A.K., et al. 2011. Introduction to Biometrics. New York: Springer.
Jenkins, R. 1997. Rethinking Ethnicity: Arguments and Explorations. London: SAGE.
Johns, F., and M. Fourcade. 2020. Loops, Ladders and Links: The Recursivity of Social and
Machine Learning. Theory and Society 49: 803–832.
Johnson, F. 1985. The Western Concept of Self. In Culture and self: Asian and Western Perspectives,
ed. A.J. Marsella, G. Devos, and F.L.K. Hsu, 91. New York: Tavistock.
Kamwangamalu, M.N. 1999. Ubuntu in South Africa: A Sociolinguistic Perspective to a pan-
American Concept. Critical Arts: South-North Cultural and Media Studies 2: 24.
Karenga, M. 1999. Sources of Self in Ancient Egyptian Autobiographies: A Kawaida Articulation.
In Black American Intellectualism and Culture: A Social Study of African American Social and
Political Thought, ed. J.L. Conyers, 37. Stanford.
Klare, B., et al. 2012. Face Recognition Performance: Role of Demographic Information. IEEE
Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 7 (6): 1789–1801.
Kloppenburg, S., and I. Van der Ploeg. 2018. Securing Identities: Biometrics Technologies and the
Enactment of Human Bodily Differences. Science as Culture 29 (1): 57–76.
Krupiy T. 2021a. Understanding Digital Discrimination: Analysing Marshall McLuhan’s Work
Through a Human Rights Lens, 1 April 2021, https://newexplorations.net/understanding-
digital-discrimination-analysing-marshall-mcluhans-work-through-a-human-rights-lens-2/.
Last accessed on 17 Dec 2021.
———. 2021b. Why the Proposed Artificial Intelligence Regulation Does Not Deliver on
the Promise to Protect Individuals from Harm, 23 July 2021. https://europeanlawblog.
eu/2021/07/23/why-the-proposed-artificial-intelligence-regulation-does-not-deliver-on-the-
promise-to-protect-individuals-from-harm/. Last accessed 17 Dec 2021
La Fontaine, J.S. 1985. Person and Individual: Some Anthropological Reflections. In Culture
and Self: Asian and Western Perspectives, ed. A.J. Marsella, G. De Vos, and F.L.K. Hsu, 189.
New York: Tavistock.
Laclau, E. 1990. New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time, 90. London: Verso.
Leacock, S. 1954. The Ethnlogical Theory of Marcel Mauss. American Anthropologist New Series
56 (1): 58–73.
Magnet, S. 2011. When Biometrics Fail: Gender, Race and the Technology of Identity, 50. Durham:
Duke University Press.
Maguire, M. 2012. Biopower, Racialization and New Security Technology. Social Identities:
Journal for the Study of Race Nation and Culture 18 (5): 593–607.
Molnar P., and L. Gill. 2018. Bots at the Gate. A Human Rights Analysis of Automated Decision-
Making in Canada’s Immigration and Refugee System. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bit-
stream/1807/94802/1/IHRP-Automated-Systems-Report-Web-V2.pdf. Last accessed on 9
Dec 2021
Mutanen, A. 2007. Deliberation – Action – Responsibility: Philosophical Aspects of Professions
and Soldierships. In Ethical Education in the Military: What, How and Why in the 21st
Century? ed. J. Toiskallio, 124–150. Helsinki: ACEI.
———. 2010. About the Notion of Identity. LIMES 3 (1): 28–38.
Niemann, Y.F. 2012. The Making of a Token: A Case Study of Stereotype Threat, Stigma, Racism
and Tokenism in Academia. In Presumed Incompetent: The Intersections of Race and Class for
Women in Academia, ed. G.G. Muhs et al., 336–355. Utah State University Press.
Philips, P.J., et al. 2011. An Other-Race Effect for Face Recognition Algorithms. ACM Transactions
on Applied Perceptions 8 (2): 14.
Pugliese, J. 2010. Biometrics: Bodies, Technologies, Biopolitics, 57. New York: Routledge.
Redman, P. 2000. Introduction. In Identity: A reader, ed. P. Du Gay, J. Evans, and P. Redman,
9–14. London: SAGE.
Riley, P. 2003. Self Access as Access to Self: Cultural Variations in the Notions of Self and
Personhood. In Learner Autonomy Across Cultures, ed. D. Palfreyman and R.C. Smith, 92–109.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Root, B. 2018. US Immigration Officials Pulls Plug on High-Tech Extreme Vetting, 28 May 2018,
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/05/18/us-immigration-officials-pull-plug-high-tech-extreme-
vetting. Last accessed on 10 Dec 2021.
Solomon, R.C. 1994. Recapturing Personal Identity. In Self as Body in the Asian Theory and
Practice, ed. T.P. Kasulis, R.T. Aimes, and W. Dissanayake, 7. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Solon, O. 2018. Surveillance Society: Has Technology at the US-Mexico Border Gone Too Far?,
13 June 2018, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/13/mexico-
us-border-wall-surveillance-artificial-intelligence-technology. Last accessed on 10 Dec 2021
Tangermann, J. 2017. Documenting and Establishing Identity in the Migration Process. Challenges
and Practices in the German Context, 27 September 2017, https://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/
Anlagen/EN/EMN/Studien/wp76-emn-identitaetssicherung-feststellung.html?nn=282388.
Last accessed on 23 Dec 2021
The Economist. 2020. Covid-19 Spurs National Plans to Give Citizens Digital Identities, 7
December 2020, https://www.economist.com/international/2020/12/07/covid-19-spurs-
national-plans-to-give-citizens-digital-identities. Last accessed on 23 Dec 2021
Warren, S.D., and L.D. Brandeis. 1890. The Right to Privacy. Harvard Law Review 4: 193.
Westin, A.F. 1968. Privacy and freedom. Washington and Lee Law Review 25 (1): 166.
Socially Good AI Contributions
for the Implementation of Sustainable
Development in Mountain Communities
Through an Inclusive Student-Engaged
Learning Model
Tyler Lance Jaynes, Baktybek Abdrisaev, and Linda MacDonald Glenn
Abstract AI is increasingly becoming based upon Internet-dependent systems to

handle the massive amounts of data it requires to function effectively regardless of
the availability of stable Internet connectivity in every affected community. As such,
sustainable development (SD) for rural and mountain communities will require
more than just equitable access to broadband Internet connection. It must also
include a thorough means whereby to ensure that affected communities gain the
education and tools necessary to engage inclusively with new technological
advances, whether they be focused on machine learning algorithms or community
infrastructure, as they will be increasingly dependent upon the automational capa-
bilities of AI. In this essay, an exploration will be conducted into the means whereby
student-engaged learning (SEL) can effectively be utilized to provide targeted,
inclusive education to rural and mountain communities regarding the implications
of AI for SD.
T. L. Jaynes (*)
Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA
Department of Philosophy & Humanities, College of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Utah Valley University, Orem, UT, USA
B. Abdrisaev
Department of History and Political Science, College of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Utah Valley University, Orem, UT, USA
L. M. Glenn
Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA
Center for Applied Values and Ethics in Advanced Technologies (CAVEAT), Crown College,
University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA
270 T. L. Jaynes et al.
Keywords Artificial intelligence · Bioethics · Inclusive student-engaged learning ·

Mountain communities · Non-traditional students · Sustainable development goals
1 Introduction
“Earth and sky, woods and fields, lakes and rivers, the mountain and the sea, are
excellent schoolmasters, and teach of us more than we can ever learn from books”
(Lubbock 1894, 70). “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled” (Feynman 1988, 237). These two
quotes encapsulate the spirit of this collaborative book, in the opinion of these
authors, and emphasize the importance of a holistic perspective which recognizes
that humanity is part of a larger interconnected system that creates and sustains our
civic obligations to one another. Cognizance of this integration requires an incorpo-
ration of the natural landscape into our considerations for the development and use
of new technologies because its recognition may seem trivial in the grander scheme
of things. Socially good values should, therefore, include the environments wherein
communities reside and the history that is attached to those immortal and evolving
vistas that define their landscape. So too then are considerations for our natural
world vital to a broader conversation on the means whereby artificial intelligence
(AI) can play a role in the global attainment of the United Nations (UN) 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development (hereafter “the 2030 Agenda”), as reflected in
the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) described in their 2015 resolu-
tion (UN General Assembly [UN GA] 2015).
In this chapter, we contend that community-based education on and with AI posi-
tively impacts the ability of mountain communities to achieve their attainment of
the 2030 Agenda’s Goals as a population that is uniquely adapted to harsh natural
conditions (as defined by high elevations and microclimate generation). We will
defend this stance with the use case of inclusive educational programs involving
representatives of mountain communities—a subset of rural communities, as is gen-
erally understood—and how their success has led to a more robust response to the
2030 Agenda at home and abroad. Programs, when implemented under frameworks
similar to those discussed herein, create learning conditions that satisfy the ethical
requirements lauded by researchers internationally for socially good AI (Reidl
2019; Shneiderman 2020; Li 2021) in the eyes of these authors. They furthermore
ensure that the outcomes of engaged and inclusive student learning, specific to the
practical implementation of IoT and AI usage and development, are based on
human-centered and socially good principles.
As a note, the implementation of similar programs will require more than the
assurance of equitable and stable access to broadband Internet connection. Any rep-
licated effort must also ensure that affected communities will inclusively engage
with new technological advances through effective and affordable education and
resources. These stipulations are necessary to iterate because of the volatile nature
of AI development, which will inevitably result in increased communal dependence
Socially Good AI Contributions for the Implementation of Sustainable Development… 271
on advanced systems’ autonomous capabilities and a greater range of “smart” and

interoperable devices (Jaynes 2021a, b, d) by communities that have greater famil-
iarity and access to the tools driving these innovations.
2 History and Background
As other contributors to this volume argue, AI is increasingly becoming an area of

focus for effective goal attainment in the 2030 Agenda because of the efficiency that
results from its usage. Since AI is dependent upon the Internet of Things (IoT) to
handle the massive amounts of data it requires to function effectively, one of the
major ethical issues that arise for rural and mountain communities is reliable Internet
access. Urban communities with fairly stable connectivity to IoT are thriving, but
those who inhabit regions which are predominantly rural worldwide are being left
behind (Durish 2020). In addition to a lack of access and connectivity instability (Su
2020, 58–59), the populations in many of these areas have yet to gain a basic under-
standing of how IoT is so drastically changing workflows and information distribu-
tion, among other topics, due to a lack of connections and training (Durish 2020;
France-Presse 2021). If better-connected communities continue to neglect these
populations, and the reported 37% of the human population that has never had the
Internet (France-Presse 2021)—either deliberately or unintentionally—existing
inequities and inequalities will only continue to expand exponentially as AI and
IoT-based technologies gain in ability and sophistication.
A lack of awareness is significant because of the divides that exist from eco-
nomic underdevelopment, unstable or unreliable access to IoT, and a dearth of
proper education between areas with access and those with limited or no access.
One can hardly be expected to attain an understanding of how a tool works if one’s
access to that tool is restricted or wholly out of reach because of the natural features
that make up their place of residence. The digital divide is not growing simply
because of Internet connectivity issues—many communities (mountainous and
rural) and their residents do not, or cannot, have access to these information tech-
nology (IT) and information system (IS) architectures that maintain AI’s effective-
ness (Bissell 2004; Brescia and Daily 2007; Pick et al. 2015; Bürgin and Mayer
2020; Iqbal et al. 2021). IT and IS have been able to contribute to the economic
development in mountainous areas through telemedicine, distance education, tour-
ism promotion, and targeted marketing of local products when the architectures and
infrastructures are provided (Brescia and Daily 2007; Price 2013). Yet the advance
of modern communication technologies—including AI and the IT and IS support-
ing it—into the most remote parts of the mountainous world deepens the alienation
of local communities present there from the national polity in part because assump-
tions are made regarding the “ease” whereby IoT operating knowledge is acquired
(Starr 2004; Bürgin and Mayer 2020; Iqbal et al. 2021).
Other factors play into the struggle to grant IoT access to every member of the
human species, such as naturally occurring dead zones in mountain ranges and
deserts that persist even with targeted cell tower installation, but none are as com-
plex as the fundamental understanding of safe IoT usage and the rights held by
individuals utilizing IoT-based and AI services. The reality remains that individuals
are often at the mercy of corporations that often self-determine what these rights
may be (as can be publicly seen in the lawsuits being levied against Google and its
parent company, Apple, and the corporation formerly known as Facebook).
Therefore, IoT and AI use based on widely accepted principles of “social good” for
communities struggling to attain stable access presents an important priority for the
implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Marr (2021) outlines the main requirements
for an ethical application of AI within any institution as raising awareness through
education, transparency, inclusiveness, and following established rules (to name a
few); though similar statements have been iterated elsewhere (Reidl 2019;
Shneiderman 2020; Li 2021).
3 Why Focus on Sustainable Development in Mountains?
Where mountainous communities are struggling to meet the Goals set out by the
2030 Agenda because of the unique circumstances generated by the land and natural
conditions they live within (UN GA 2019), a targeted focus on these populations is
absolutely necessary. As stated in the UN Secretary General report to the General
Assembly from July 22, 2019, approximately 27% of the world’s landmass is made
up by mountainous regions, and 14% of the human population resides in these
areas. Furthermore, the report states that:
…mountains are key ecosystems that provide humanity with essential goods and services
such as water, food, biodiversity and energy. However, mountain ecosystems are vulnerable
to natural disasters, climate-related events and unsustainable resource use…Identifying
new and sustainable livelihood opportunities and adopting practices that build the resilience
of people and environments in mountain areas is an urgent requirement for achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals. (UN GA 2019, 1)
A warming climate have dramatic impacts for regional water ecosystems, even if
they are not actively perceived due to changes in regional atmospheric moisture
capture and gradual adjustments to regional and international air currents. These
gradual—albeit accelerated—changes result from the raised ambient temperature of
natural features and systems (e.g., canyons, forests, lakes, seas, valley basins), or the
impact of wind-channeling structures in flatland areas (e.g., dams, roadside wind-
breaks, sea walls, wind turbines, skyscrapers). These factors are leading to decreases
in terminal water body size, drastic changes in water body nutrient density that have
a chain effect on local biospheres, and fluctuations in the soil’s ability to retain
water—which has the compound effect of increasing the damage of landslides,
impacting the ability of biomass to resist burning via growth in dead biomass and
loss of natural defense mechanisms, and the prevention of rainfall from being fed
into local water tables to supplement local vegetation (Wagner 2007; Suzuki 2011;
Baxter and Butler 2020; Chen et al. 2020; Jara et al. 2021).
Beyond biosphere concerns, which include the reality that higher elevations
experience warming at different rates than lower elevation areas (Wilkins et al.
2021), there are related concerns that a loss of terminal lake volume will contribute
to declines in population health from those at the receiving end of dust storms that
pass through dry lake and riverbeds (Baxter and Butler 2020; Romero 2021). This,
of course, includes the impacts local ecosystems will face with the lack of moisture
being provided by these terminal water bodies that may be highly region specific, as
is the case for the Great Salt Lake and Aral Sea—among others—which directly
impacts all communities that source their water resources from the tributaries feed-
ing these terminal water bodies in a myriad of ways. Advances in climate monitor-
ing via AI would greatly aid local communities relying on the streams, tributaries,
and rivers feeding these terminal lake bodies in their efforts to allocate water rights
and conserve water usage while balancing the needs of tribal populations, “immi-
grant” populations, and the agriculture that sustains their economies, but many proj-
ects emphasize on the needs of metropolitan areas or non-mountainous rural locales
which are variably impoverished (Chien et al. 2012; Thapa and Sæbø 2014; Pick
et al. 2015; Kumagai 2020).
As a result, mountain communities worldwide experience inordinate challenges
with implementations of the SDGs. A recent study published by the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) adds further evidence to this
claim. In mountainous regions of developing countries, issues of food insecurity,
social isolation, environmental degradation, exposure to the risk of disasters and to
the impacts of climate change, and limited access to basic services—especially in
rural areas—are still prevalent and, under some circumstances, are increasing
(Romeo et al. 2020).
3.1 Mountain-Focused IT and IS Specialization Initiatives
Globally, many mountain communities have been successfully bringing wealth into
their locals through targeted specialization in IT and IS sectors—Silicon Valley
being the primary example of this phenomenon in the USA. Other major technology
centers worldwide can be found in the mountainous communities of Auckland,
Bangalore (Bengaluru), Bogotá, Cape Town (Kaapstad, iKapa), Dublin, Kigali,
Kuala Lumpur, Madrid, Mexico City, Munich (München), Nairobi, Salt Lake City,
Santiago, São Paulo, Sydney, Taipei, Tokyo (Tōkyō-to, including Tama-chihō, Izu-
shotō, and Ogasawara-shichō), and Vancouver (Giuliani and Ajadi 2019; Leskin
2019; López 2020).1 Notwithstanding that cities in the Caribbean only start
1
Data also collected from https://www.startupblink.com/ (accessed November 29, 2021) with
results selected from the top 300 cities to provide a more international framing of “technology
start-up-friendly” environments in mountainous regions. Respective rankings were as follows on
the access date: Bangalore (10), Tokyo (15), São Paulo (20), Sydney (36), Munich (38), Taipei
(41), Vancouver (42), Madrid (45), Mexico City (50), Dublin (51), Salt Lake City (55), Santiago
appearing in lower ranks on account of data gaps,2 the trend remains that “tech-
friendly” environments are primarily found in those areas with greater economic
investment either towards direct start-up development, foreign-worker relocation, or
literacy training for employees residing beyond a corporation’s national borders
(Chien et al. 2012; Thapa and Sæbø 2014; Pick et al. 2015; Kumagai 2020).
The concern here is that many of these hubs remain in the 136 nations (per the
UN’s list of recognized nations) that have yet to adopt governance frameworks or
principles to handle AI. As of May 11, 2021, 32 countries and the EU have estab-
lished initiatives to govern, legislate, and research means to responsibly handle the
development, implementation, use, and termination of AI systems per the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) AI initiative
(2021).3 This then implies that those nations which are still developing plans, or
organizing funds to sponsor development initiatives, will inevitably have to ensure
that their policies fall in line with those that are already established by nations that,
by some accounts, are “preemptive.” Realistically, these early-adopting nations are
wealthy enough to invest in AI research that continues to push the “state-of-the-art”
forward, and therefore force a baseline to be set ahead of international collaboration
efforts that can be discussed or pursued. Assuming that this comes to pass, as it has
with other related initiatives to govern the use of new technologies, there is a non-
zero chance that neo-colonialist mentalities will vie for supremacy with de-
colonialist frameworks that have been adopted by various nations through
governmental reforms over the past century—thereby generating a hostile environ-
ment that makes international standardization efforts nigh impossible to pursue and
transnationally compliant, socially good AI an unattainable service.
The recent motion by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) to adopt the “first global ethical framework for the use of [AI]” (Gaubert
2021) is a positive step forward to gain global consensus on how this group of tech-
nologies should be managed (UNESCO 2021). Yet similar issues exist in that
UNESCO is not a body with universal legal authority. That is not to say that their
recommendations will go unheard by the international community, but that a univer-
sal adoption of the draft recommendations will be difficult to implement for those
nations that struggle to keep up with the myriad of ways AI is evolving. These uses
include a great deal more than traditional data mining—which is easier to adapt
towards for those in the IT and IS industries currently—and will likely include the
use of AI in extended reality technologies that support the Metaverse (Jaynes 2021a,
d), assistive bionic prosthetics that may challenge our current notions of legal
(70), Bogotá (77), Kuala Lumpur (80), Auckland (105), Nairobi (136), Cape Town (145), and
Kigali (265).
2
San Juan, Puerto Rico (347), is the first example, followed by Kingston, Jamaica (685), and
Montego Bay, Jamaica (958), per the above site rankings.
3
EU member states were not counted twice, though many have chartered independent actions to
regulate AI before the EU Parliament’s actions to develop a unified framework in April 2021. See
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1623335154975&uri=CELEX%
3A52021PC0206
personhood and citizenship (Glenn 2018; Jaynes 2021b, c), and other “advanced”
applications related to high technology. These will not only challenge our interpre-
tation of what “ablement” entails for labor purposes, but also what fundamental
rights should be extended to already able-bodied individuals and the limits of equal-
ity and inclusiveness (Glenn 2012; Jaynes 2021b, c). While not presently a great
focus by the international community on account of the supporting infrastructural
needs of these other applications, it cannot be denied that considerations of this
nature are part of a socially good application of AI and should therefore be exam-
ined as these infrastructural needs are developed and deployed.
Furthermore, it should be stated that many mountainous communities are often
ill-equipped to train AI engineers in environments similar to those that they will be
exposed to in the workplace. High-tech start-ups are free to structure their work
environments as their budgets and office space allow because of how new their
institution is relative to the community they may inhabit. Universities, on the other
hand, commonly have to retrofit buildings that they have housed for decades on
budgets that are much more limited, or otherwise constrained by local building code
restrictions that did not account for accelerated advances in communications tech-
nologies. Part of this is the direct result of the difficulties in drilling for fiber-optic
connections in mountainous and island regions (Canevaro 2018; Engel-Smith 2021)
and naturally occurring cell phone and Wi-Fi dead zones, but is exacerbated by the
fact that communities living on tectonic fault lines are at threat to seismic and vol-
canic activity (outside of other potential issues like hurricanes and tsunamis). As
such, these regions require particular consideration when discussing the develop-
ment of AI regulation because they may not have technologically savvy populations
that can articulate the needs of their communities.
3.2 Contributions of Education to the Implementation

of the Agenda Based on Socially Good Principles
The State of Utah, along with 17 states in the USA, recently adopted legislation
considering benefits and challenges of AI. What distinguished Utah S.B. 96 from
those adopted in other states is that it “creates a deep technology talent initiative
within higher education” (Utah State Legislature 2020). Although the University of
Utah was able to serve as one of the earliest nodes to public Internet services in the
USA (Tanner 2021), the recent push to promote the Silicon Slopes initiative (Pagano
2017; Campbell 2018; Clark 2020) has been rapidly displaying the inability of local
universities to keep up with the demand for jobs that handle AI and socially good AI
analysis (O’Toole 2021). In truth, many Utah campuses have been expanding in the
past decade like many others across the nation. Yet the historical trend of Utah being
a “labor export” state has resulted in an educational environment where expansions
have been restricted to professions popular in other parts of the country, sports (to
maintain PAC-12 status), or medicine (specifically expansions of Intermountain
Healthcare-related facilities) while being unable to address industries that have less
of an impact on Utah’s economy even as they saw rapid expansion (Campbell 2018;
Tanner 2021).
The goal of reinvigorating AI-related education is not limited to the University of
Utah or Utah Valley University (UVU). They include other schools serving moun-
tainous communities, such as the University of California - Santa Cruz with their
efforts to establish the Center for Applied Values and Ethics in Advanced
Technologies (CAVEAT) and the Kyrgyz School of Data (among hundreds of simi-
lar initiatives). The challenge often remains, however, in being able to employ these
newly trained workers in local communities when non-mountainous cities or nations
develop favorable policies or work environments that cannot be adequately matched
(Meisenzahl 2019; Rose 2020; Rosalsky 2021). Hence, the rationale for developing
Utah S.B. 96 was to create a new pathway for local businesses and universities to
secure emerging talent through direct-hire programs via educational training and
other related projects (Utah State Legislature 2020).
The cooperation between UVU, located in Orem, Utah, and the International
University of Kyrgyzstan (IUK) from Bishkek, the Kyrgyz Republic, presents an
example of a joint, human-centered educational program to implement the 2030
Agenda with focus on sustainable mountain development (SMD) based on socially
good principles (Reidl 2019; Shneiderman 2020; Li 2021), which is made apparent
annually through a joint implementation of the UN GA resolution “International
Year of Mountains, 2002” (UN GA 2003; Price and Kohler 2013). Historically, the
program arose from a 1999 partnership between developed and developing moun-
tain communities from the State of Utah and the Kyrgyz Republic, respectively
(Abdrisaev et al. 2020a, b).
This partnership allowed for Utahns to share with their Kyrgyz partners unique
local experiences in building one of the most successful economic models in the
USA. Special emphasis was made on the role and contribution of educational insti-
tutions like UVU to that model, including with IoT use (Abdrisaev et al. 2005;
Abdrisaev et al. 2011). As a next step in this direction and implementation of the
2002 UN GA resolution recommendation, UVU joined the FAO Mountain
Partnership (MP) in 2006 as the first academic institution in North America (UN
GA 2003, FAO MP n.d.-a). In turn, the Kyrgyz side provided to their Utahn partners
their own knowledge and networking opportunities to pursue SMD at the UN—in
particular by being one of the main initiators of the IYM celebration under the UN
GA resolution (Price 2004, 3) and on a bilateral basis through the UVU faculty and
students’ involvement in the initiatives and programs of the Embassy of the Kyrgyz
Republic to the USA.
For its part, UVU was established in 1941 as a trade school to serve the needs of
local communities along the Wasatch Mountain range in the Rocky Mountain
region. Through its dual-mission education, UVU today serves as an integrated
community college and regional teaching university (“Vision 2030” 2020). 88% of
UVU students are Utah residents (UVU Institutional Research Department 2019),
and 80% of them are employed as they pursue their education whether locally or
through tele-work that keeps them in-state (Whittney 2020). In line with the trend
of the student population in the USA and Europe (Hauschildt 2015), 30% of the
UVU student body is represented by non-traditional or adult students (Ho-Wisniewski
2020). This category of students is usually in the range of 25 and 75 years of age
while enhancing or changing careers. The majority of them also work full or part
time and may support families or relatives (Pelletier 2010; Tuminez 2020; Whittney
2020). Adult students are designated as learners who experience social or educa-
tional disadvantages and may have interests and values which differ from their tra-
ditional peers (Wyatt 2011).
The joint partnership between UVU and the IUK within the FAO MP has created
a means for both institutions to strengthen the socially good nature of their activities
by involving faculty and students in several different ways across their respective
campuses. For UVU’s part, their involvement matches the institutional mission of
the school (UVU 2020) while addressing many livelihood-related aspects of the
local population. By engaging with students and faculty from the IUK, the UVU
community has been able to share local experiences in SMD and related policy
through UN-sanctioned activities that help to distinguish the unique cultural differ-
ences that exist between the Kyrgyz and Utahn populations.
4 Goals and Targets Related to SMD
Of particular note, the 2030 Agenda designated Goal Targets 6.6 ([to]…protect and
restore water-related ecosystems), 15.1 (ensure the conservation, restoration and
sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems), and 15.5 (reduce
the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and…protect and
prevent the extinction of threatened species) for SMD within their total framework
of 17 SDGs and 169 Targets (UN GA 2015). The implementation of SMD globally
is coordinated by the FAO MP, which has been in operation since 2003 as a subunit
of the organization (FAO MP n.d.-a), for the express purpose of ensuring that the
significance mountainous regions hold for global ecosystems and sustainable living
are neither neglected nor forgotten. The UN GA resolution proclaiming 2002 the
International Year of Mountains (IYM) further recommends that all stakeholders
worldwide interested in the promotion of SMD to join the FAO MP (UN GA 2003).
As a result of these targeted, coordinated efforts, the FAO MP now has more than
400 members, including intergovernmental organizations, mountain states, aca-
demic institutions, non-governmental entities, and others that do not necessarily
exist in rural or mountainous regions (FAO MP n.d.-a; Abdrisaev et al. 2020a, b).
Beyond the Targets designated for SMD, we cannot ignore the importance SMD
holds to the attainment of other Goals and Targets within the 2030 Agenda. These
include those Targets found in Goals 1 (No Poverty), 4 (Quality Education), 5
(Gender Equality), 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), 8 (Decent Work and Economic
Growth), 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), 10 (Reduced Inequalities), 11
(Sustainable Cities and Communities), and 15 (Life on Land) and Targets 2.3, 2.4,
3.9, 7.1, 7.b, 12.2, 12.4, 12.7, 12.8, 12.b, 13.1, 13.3, 13.b, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, and 17.6
(UN GA 2015). By ensuring that mountainous communities can participate on a

more equal playing field with flatlands-based urbanized and metropolitan areas
through particular education with and on AI, we can enable comprehensive dis-
courses on how best to manage regional resource collection and distribution while
preventing substantial “brain drain” to areas of higher population density (Bausch
et al. 2014; Khan and Somuncu 2019; Bürgin and Mayer 2020). Not only does this
enable mountainous communities to gain income from jobs created within their
unique livelihoods that would otherwise be sourced into other communities, but it
also prevents the loss of workers skilled in agriculture, forestry, mining, and other
mountain-specific industries that cannot always be found in non-mountainous
regions, and locally related native population practices that can be better for sustain-
able living in the long term (Mukhopadhyay et al. 2020; Silversmith 2021; Spoon
et al. 2021).
4.1 Inclusive Student-Engaged Learning as a Foundation

for a Socially Good Implementation of SMD
Since 2011, UVU further enhanced its involvement with the IUK, the FAO MP, and
other global mountain communities by developing a model in which students can
play a major role in promoting SMD in the State of Utah and elsewhere through the
student-engaged learning (SEL) model. The SEL model is based on four principles
as described by Burch (2000) under a different acronym, being:
1. Students are asked to study real world problems.
2. Students investigate the presented problem as a group, in a collaborative way.
3. Teachers facilitate the students’ self-learning.
4. Students are made responsible for their self-learning and implementation of the
studied problem.
To ensure student involvement in SMD activities, the model has been developed
as a co-curricular pedagogy. The extracurricular part was implemented through the
Utah International Mountain Forum (UIMF), a coalition of student clubs, to encour-
age student interest and contributions to the UN activities which quite often extend
over several semesters and therefore are difficult to be implemented through aca-
demic programs. Through the curricular part, faculty are able to contribute to the
model by raising interest in SMD among students and encouraging them to become
engaged with extracurricular activities on campus and in their home communities
Clubs are important for student learning outside of the classroom, providing
them opportunities to work interdependently, in groups, through mentoring experi-
ences led by faculty (Eccles and Barber 1999; Foubert and Urbanski 2006; Logan
2008). However, adult students usually are reluctant to be involved in any extracur-
ricular activity, including clubs, due to their busy schedules (Dill and Henley 1998).
The UIMF, as per Wyatt (2011), allowed for adult students to join at times conve-
nient to them in any of the coalition-partnered clubs. Joined with faculty advice, as
per Timpson et al. (2014), interested students were then able to tie their individual
experiences or interests with ongoing SMD activities locally and nationally.
The adapted SEL model also encourages adult students, as mature and respon-
sible individuals, to contribute towards projects based on their own experiences or
interests, implement them as group leaders, and then enjoy the recognition of the
FAO MP (Timpson et al. 2014). As a result, the majority of SMD projects imple-
mented by the UIMF are initiated by students—many of whom represent local
mountain communities. Due to the requirement for clubs to self-fund activities
(UVU 2020), the model also encouraged students, including adult learners, to raise
and contribute funds for initiated SMD projects through the UIMF or other
related forums.
Academic programs, and in particular general courses, until recently contributed
to the developed model by allowing for faculty during classes to build ties with
students—especially adult learners—and then incentivize them to join the UIMF
(Abdrisaev et al. 2020a, b). Students at UVU, for example, can enroll in a three-
credit course, “Globalization and SMD,” which is currently the only course related
to the SMD agenda at the university and taught during the spring semester. They
learn theories and practices of SMD in Utah and globally, as well as skills to match
their professional experiences and allow them to become club leaders to advocate
for Utah practices in SMD at the UN and other institutions. Courses like this also
have the benefit of allowing faculty concerned with varied aspects of SMD to con-
tribute to the model by developing and teaching courses, which provide the students
professional training on a wider range of 2030 Agenda Goal pursuits. The impact of
these courses could be better focused or made more efficient by integrating them
into certificates, minors, or majors on Sustainable Development (SD) alone or in
tangent with other curricula internationally but has not been seriously considered
to date.
Ultimately, the adapted SEL model ensures the inclusivity of student involve-
ment within SMD activities—which is a key principle for ethically aligned AI
design and socially good AI more generally as based on considerations for interna-
tional human rights (Reidl 2019; Shneiderman 2020; Li 2021; Marr 2021; Jaynes
2021b, c). It also concurrently implements target 4.7, which aims to “…ensure that
all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote SD, including,
among others, through education for SD and sustainable lifestyles, human rights,
gender equality…” (UN GA 2015). It is for this reason that we contend that an
emphasis on SMD issues is important to the fulfillment of the entirety of the 2030
Agenda, as the attainment of Targets 6.6, 15.1, and 15.5 alone is not enough to dis-
play the importance of sustainable infrastructure and technology development in
mountainous communities.
4.2 Examples of Socially Good SMD Advocacy and IoT Use

Within the Adapted SEL Model
The first initiative from which UIMF started to advocate for SMD upon its founding
was an observation of December 11th as the UN International Mountain Day (IMD).
Since their first observation in 2010, the UIMF has observed the IMD every year.
This event implements one more recommendation of the UN IYM resolution (UN
GA 2003) and provides recognition from the FAO MP for its observation as a result.
It has become an essential activity for the adapted SEL model as an on-campus,
semester-based, UN-related activity that provides a variety of benefits based on
socially good principles—especially for students and adult learners who cannot go
to the UN due to time or financial constraints. Students gain via the UIMF being a
part of UVU’s club network; members are also able to gain a number of other expe-
riences with IMD observations. These include the accumulation of advocacy experi-
ences that require extended time frames to implement (specific to the UN),
developing internal and external alliances for joint activities at home and abroad,
raising awareness for other IMD observations, providing a venue for FAO MP rec-
ognition to SMD contributors, and opportunities to recruit new UIMF members
Since 2007, UVU and IUK have regularly co-hosted the “Women of the
Mountains” conference (WOMC). WOMC is an international conference which
serves to implement the third recommendation of the UN IYM resolution (UN GA
2003), which asked that all interested institutions support (financially or otherwise)
the programs resulting from the IYM resolution. It was, and continues to be, held as
a forum to follow up on the efforts resulting from the “Celebrating Mountain
Women” conference hosted under the IYM umbrella in 2002 in Bhutan (Tshering
2002). The fourth WOMC was hosted independently by UIMF members educated
through the SEL model under the FAO MP umbrella at the Orem UVU campus on
October 7–10, 2015. More than 70 students, including those classified as non-
traditional students, were involved in the preparation, invitation, and hosting of
more than 120 participants for this event—including conference fundraising. These
guests included diplomats, UN officials, scholars, and experts from both the USA
Rocky Mountain and over 20 mountain states internationally beyond the Kyrgyz
Republic. The UN highlighted the UIMF’s role in hosting this WOMC as allowing
participants “…to address the critical issues faced by women and children living in
mountainous regions across the globe and provide a forum to discuss gender equal-
ity” (UN GA 2019, 10).
Based on experiences accumulated from IMD observations and hosting WOMC,
UIMF members advocated (through the augmented SEL educational model) during
various UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) forums since 2016—in par-
ticular during sessions of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). It was
an opportunity for them both to raise voices in support of women and girls from
mountain communities worldwide and to report on Utah-specific experiences in
building sustainable communities. Engaged UIMF members learned how building
partnerships with non-governmental organizations registered under the UN

ECOSOC—such as the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RANS) and the
Utah-China Friendship Improvement Sharing Hands Development and
Cooperation—play an important role in effective advocacy at the UN. Each year,
students co-host a parallel event with RANS at the UN. These have included the
CSW62–65 and the High-Level Political Forum of ECOSOC for Sustainable
Development in 2018. This collaboration has resulted in the augmented SEL model
being recognized in various written statements from RANS (UN ECOSOC February
2018, UN ECOSOC November 2018, UN ECOSOC 2020).
The UIMF advocacy campaign has always relied on the use of a number of
simple, affordable, and effective IoT tools and applications which have been con-
tributed and developed by students. Since the launch of the student-designed and
maintained website of the UIMF,4 it has played a key role in displaying the effec-
tiveness of the augmented SEL model. The website serves as a database to consoli-
date all relevant information of initiatives which members of the coalition have
contributed to the advocacy campaign of SMD under the umbrella of the FAO
MP. This includes information on roughly 350 student activities, which include stu-
dent reflective essays, copies of activity agendas, task lists, posters, brochures,
media links, and other such materials. Those files are often used as templates for
future activities, provide institutional memory of past UIMF activities, and ensure
both continuity and smooth transition of activities between semesters and the lead-
ership of the UIMF. This contributes to the overall goal of the augmented SEL
model to provide both maximum responsibility and credit to students for the imple-
mentation of SMD activities with minimum faculty involvement.
In addition, posted reflective essays serve as links to FAO MP informational
media outlets and other national and international websites. Since 2011, UVU and
the UIMF have been recognized 82 times (or about 10 times per year) on the FAO
MP and other FAO news websites and 57 times (or about 7 times per year) in the
monthly FAO MP newsletter “Peak to Peak” (FAO MP n.d.-c; Abdrisaev et al.
2020a, b). Posted student essays also provide links for official and personal social
media outlets highlighting contributions of particular students to UIMF activities.
As a result, the UIMF site has become a type of “e-referral” several students have
been able to utilize in lieu of traditional letters of recommendation for certain jobs
and internship positions (Abdrisaev et al. 2020a, b).
IoT is important for facilitating regular dialogue and networking between repre-
sentatives of the State of Utah with counterparts in the Kyrgyz Republic (Abdrisaev
et al. 2011) and elsewhere. Twelve years of IMD observations have allowed UIMF
members to combine face-to-face and online joint observations with different part-
ners. Two UIMF members with local hosts observed IMD on December 11, 2012,
in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, during the international conference “Climate Change and
Mountains” (Abdrisaev et al. 2020a, b). They also had an online conversation with
the rest of the UIMF team, which observed the IMD at UVU campus in Orem, Utah
4
Found at https://www.uvu.edu/utahimf/blog/index.html
(Abdrisaev et al. 2020a, b). UIMF leaders have been invited and contributed to IMD
2018 and IMD 2019 observations hosted by a group of mountain states led by the
Permanent Mission of the Kyrgyz Republic to the UN. The IMD 2021 observation
was hosted as a virtual event with a joint contribution from UIMF members and
students from Osh Technological University in Osh, Kyrgyzstan. It served as a pre-
paratory step for a joint visit and presentation of the Utah-Kyrgyz student delegation
at the 66th session of the CSW in March 2022.
Furthermore, UIMF members successfully used IoT during the campaign orga-
nized by the FAO MP in the fall of 2015 to gather 5000 signatures among the FAO
MP members to include mountain-related issues to the agenda of the UN Climate
Change Conference (COP26) in Paris. Students, by using IoT, collected more than
1600 signatures both at UVU campus and from their partners at Osh Technological
University, the Kyrgyz-Turkish University in Bishkek, and RANS in Moscow,
Russia (Hackney 2015).
Given the success of UIMF activities as influenced by the augmented SEL model,
efforts should therefore consciously incorporate IoT-based tools like AI as part of
their broader academic program—including in any certificate, minor, or major that
focuses on SD. This will allow for new and emerging tools developed by students or
industry to further SMD advocacy and retain a socially good emphasis. Again, this
recommendation is being made with respect to the pace whereby AI is evolving,
finding new applications, and generating new socioeconomic and sociopolitical
issues that require rapid attention (Jaynes 2021a, b, c, d). Given that non-traditional
and employed students can provide unique perspectives into the ways AI ought to
be implemented, audited, and governed by virtue of their varied life experience, we
further assert that their input would be just as invaluable to guide AI in a socially
good manner that is beneficial for SMD and the 2030 Agenda more broadly.
5 Recommendations and Conclusion
Though there are programs coming into being around the world that focus on AI
ethics,5 there are a number of other issues pertinent to socially good AI beyond
auditing for system bias and stakeholder interest determination which require ethi-
cal scrutiny. As we have argued throughout this chapter, they include the instruction
of populations that may not even have IoT access at present due to the natural fea-
tures that make up their home landscape or literacy in the languages used to pro-
gram AI systems. Furthermore, there is the reality that SDG attainment and
maintenance is not solely an environmental concern—it is every much as human a
concern as the protection of those rights granted to us by local and national
governmental institutions, and therefore pertinent for socially good considerations.
5
Such as those degrees and certificates offered by Cambridge’s Leverhulme Centre for the Future
of Intelligence (http://lcfi.ac.uk/master-ai-ethics/) and San Francisco State University’s Lam
Family College of Business (https://cob.sfsu.edu/management/certificate/ai-ethics)
As such, considerations for the sustainable implementation of AI must be priori-

tized as an item of curricular importance because no explicit means to incorporate
AI into the SDGs is otherwise made apparent by the UN during its initial drafting of
the Agenda (UN GA 2015).
To this end, we offer here the suggestion that curricula internationally adapt to
include majors, minors, and certificates dedicated not only to AI ethics but also to
SD in the lens of high technology. While some may argue that a specialization in AI
is too severe for undergraduate education, it should be remembered that not all who
engage in this level of postsecondary education are traditional students. Also, there
is the reality that traditional IT and IS education is increasingly incorporating AI as
a result of its dependence upon the infrastructure provided by these two disciplines.
And since AI systems are already being used in SD projects internationally to aid in
the optimization of industries such as agriculture, finance, fishing, forestry, and
mining, there is little argument that other high-technology applications may also be
utilized for SD realization on a global scale.
We further argue that the SEL model (whether adapted towards SD consider-
ations or not) is an effective tool that will not lose its usefulness regardless of how
higher education evolves and that it serves as a convenient system whereby socially
good education can be engaged. Not only does the SEL model effectively enlist the
classroom cooperation of traditional and non-traditional students, but it provides a
venue for “young” and “old” alike (in body, spirit, or experience) to attach their
worldviews and experiences to the material they are being taught. Furthermore,
those engaged in SD advocacy can similarly utilize this productive environment to
find avenues whereby they can effectively engage with SD advocates on a local (if
not national or international) scale. Depending on the way in which institutions of
higher learning implement the SEL model, it can also be an avenue wherein indus-
try partners can also engage with locally educated students to secure talent and
develop new generations of corporate leadership via tuition-supplemented mentor-
ship programs or apprenticeships.
Of course, our focus here has been to show the SEL model’s effectiveness for
mountainous and rural populations—but that does not entail that this model is only
effective for those populations. Our focus is merely the result of our concerns for
how mountainous and other rural communities have unique concerns and chal-
lenges that often prevent them from being as engaged in technological adoption and
development (beyond how natural landscape features are uniquely impacted by
environmental challenges). Balancing the concerns of these communities is not a
simple issue to address in the face of metropolitan economic disparities and men-
talities that divide “developed” and “rural” areas in politics and economics.
However, the same can be said for the mentalities that divide the Global North from
the Global South or neo-colonialists from de-colonialists. Ultimately, socially good
values impact every population of our species regardless of how we segregate our-
selves—even if those values carry a different weight from one community to the
next—because they are built on social mores and ethical frameworks that are in a
constant state of evolution.
Nevertheless, the use of inclusive learning models like SEL will be important to
ensure that AI can maintain a socially good status for SDG attainment and mainte-
nance. Beyond aiding in the achievement of Goal 4, it will aid in the achievement of
related Goals (specifically 5, 8, 10, and 17). Advocating for SMD in this context has
a similar effect because considerations for mountainous and island communities are
sparse throughout the SDGs and mostly limited to specific Targets within the
Agenda. As such, the needs of these unique landscapes are often lost in major UN
forums in favor of population areas that have greater densities or “development.”
After all, socially good values cannot neglect the needs of communities that depend
on more central areas of commerce and social engagement. Indeed, it is this consid-
eration for all peoples that justifies the development of notions that are globally
good for society and not just the efforts of organizations like the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), EU, OECD, UNESCO, or independent govern-
mental institutions. Hence, SDG attainment and maintenance will require input not
only on the way the Goals should be achieved but also on the ways in which high
technology (like AI) can be effectively implemented. To that end, inclusive educa-
tion that engages local communities and encourages their unique input is similarly
vital as high technology evolves.
Bibliography
Abdrisaev, Baktybek D., Zamira S. Djusupova, and Alexey I. Semyonov. 2005. Case Study:
Kyrgyzstan’s Experience in Promoting Open Source for National ICT Development. Journal
of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics 3 (6): 19–22. http://www.iiisci.org/journal/sci/
FullText.asp?var=&id=P848491.
Abdrisaev, Baktybek, R.E. Rusty Butler, Zamira Dzhusupova, and Asylbek Aidaraliev. 2011.
Contributing to Sustainable Mountain Development by Facilitating Networking and Knowledge
Sharing Through ICT – Collaboration Between Rocky Mountain States and Central Asia.
Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics 9 (7): 30–39. http://www.iiisci.org/journal/
sci/FullText.asp?var=&id=SP228WP.
Abdrisaev, Baktybek, R.E. Rusty Butler, and Yanko Dzhukev. 2020a. Sustainable Mountain
Development Advocacy Through Student Engaged Learning by Observing International
Mountain Day: The Case of Utah Valley University. Mountain Research and Development 40
(4): D31–D38. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-19-00070.1.
Abdrisaev, Baktybek, Rusty Butler, Lida V. Ivanitskaya, and R. Ildar. 2020b. Utyamyshev.
Sustainable Mountain Development Promotion Through Education. Bulletin of the Russian
Academy of Natural Sciences 2020 (2): 100–105. https://raen.info/upload/redactorfiles/maket_
vestnik_2020_02.pdf. [Абдрисаев, Бактыбек, Расти Батлер, Иваницкая Л. Владимировна,
и Утямышев И. Рустамович. Вестник Российской академии естественных наук 2020, №
2 (2020): 100–105.].
Bausch, Thomas, Madeleine Koch, and Alexander Veser, eds. 2014. Coping with Demographic
Change in the Alpine Regions: Actions and Strategies for Spatial and Regional Development.
Heidelberg, DE: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54681-5.
Baxter, Bonnie K., and Jaimi K. Butler, eds. 2020. Great Salt Lake Biology: A Terminal
Lake in a Time of Change. Cham, CH: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-40352-2.
Bissell, Therese. 2004. The Digital Divide Dilemma: Preserving Native American Culture While
Increasing Access to Information Technology on Reservations. Journal of Law, Technology
& Policy 2004 (1): 129–150. http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/bis-
sell.pdf.
Brescia, William, and Tony Daily. 2007. Economic Development and Technology-Skill Needs on
American Indian Reservations. American Indian Quarterly 31 (1): 23–43. https://www.jstor.
org/stable/4138893.
Burch, Kurt. 2000. A Primer on Problem-Based Learning for International Relations Courses.
International Studies Perspectives 1 (1): 31–44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44218105.
Bürgin, Reto, and Heike Mayer. 2020. Digital Periphery? A Community Case Study of
Digitalization Efforts in Swiss Mountain Regions. In Smart Village Technology: Concepts and
Developments, ed. Srikanta Patnaik, Siddhartha Sen, and Magdi S. Mahmoud, 67–98. Cham,
CH: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37794-6_4.
Campbell, Wendy. 2018. The Impact of the Internet of Things (IoT) on the IT Security Infrastructure
of Traditional Colleges and Universities in the State of Utah. In The Internet of People, Things
and Services: Workplace Transformations, ed. Claire A. Simmers and Murugan Anandarajan,
132–153. New York: Routledge.
Canevaro, Mary A. 2018. 3 Challenges of Fiber Deployment and How to
Improve the Process. Alden, September 18, 2018, https://info.aldensys.com/
joint-use/3-challenges-of-fiber-deployment-and-how-to-improve-the-process
Chen, Haiyan, Yaning Chen, Dalong Li, and Weihong Li. 2020. Effect of Sub-Cloud Evaporation
on Precipitation in the Tianshan Mountains (Central Asia) Under the Influence of Global
Warming. Hydrological Processes 34 (26): 5557–5566. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13969.
Chien, Nguyen D., Zhang K. Zhong, and Tran T. Giang. 2012. FDI and Economic Growth: Does
WTO Accession and Law Matter Play Important Role in Attracting FDI? The Case of Viet
Nam. International Business Research 5 (8): 214–227. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v5n8p214.
Clark, Alyssa. 2020. Creating the Virtuous Organization. Marriott Student Review 3 (3): 12. https://
scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1204&context=marriottstudentreview.
Dill, Patricia L., and Tracy B. Henley. 1998. Stressors of College: A Comparison of Traditional and
Nontraditional Students. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied 132 (1):
25–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989809599261.
Durish, Nicolas. 2020. A Case Study in the Design and Development of a Community-Based
Internet Assessment Initiative in Rigolet, Nunatsiavut, Canada. MSc thesis, University of
Guelph. https://hdl.handle.net/10214/21287.
Eccles, Jacquelynne S., and Bonnie L. Barber. 1999. Student Council, Volunteering, Basketball,
or Marching Band: What Kind of Extracurricular Involvement Matters? Journal of Adolescent
Research 14 (1): 10–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558499141003.
Engel-Smith, Liora. 2021. In North Carolina’s Mountains, Broadband Isn’t a Given. North
Carolina Health News, July 7, 2021, https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2021/07/07/
in-north-carolinas-mountains-broadband-isnt-a-given/
FAO Mountain Partnership. (n.d.-a). Members. FAO. https://www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/
members/en/
———. (n.d.-b). Mountain Partnership: About. FAO. https://www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/
about/en/
———. (n.d.-c). Mountain Partnership: Peak to Peak. FAO. https://www.fao.org/
mountain-partnership/peak-to-peak/current-issue/en/
Feynman, Richard P. 1988. In What Do You Care What Other People Think?: Further Adventures
of a Curious Character, ed. Ralph Leighton. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Foubert, John D., and Lauren A. Urbanski. 2006. Effects of Involvement in Clubs and
Organizations on the Psychosocial Development of First-Year and Senior College Students.
Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice (NASPA Journal) 43 (1): 166–182. https://
doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1576.
France-Presse, Agence. 2021. More Than a Third of World’s Population Have Never Used
Internet, Says UN. The Guardian, November 30, 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/technol-
ogy/2021/nov/30/more-than-a-third-of-worlds-population-has-never-used-the-internet-says-
un?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-1
Gaubert, Julie. 2021. UNESCO Member Countries Adopt First Global Agreement on the Ethics
of Artificial Intelligence. EuroNews, updated November 26, 2021. https://www.euronews.com/
next/2021/11/26/unesco-member-countries-adopt-first-global-agreement-on-the-ethics-of-
artificial-intellige
Giuliani, Dario, and Sam Ajadi. 2019. 618 Active Tech Hubs: The Backbone of Africa’s
Tech Ecosystem. GSMA, July 10, 2019, https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/
blog/618-active-tech-hubs-the-backbone-of-africas-tech-ecosystem/
Glenn, Linda MacDonald. 2012. Case Study: Ethical and Legal Issues in Human Machine Mergers
(or the Cyborgs Cometh). Annals of Health Law 21 (1): 175–180. https://lawecommons.luc.
edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=annals.
———. 2018. What Is a Person? In Posthumanism: The Future of Homo sapiens, ed. Michael Bess
and Diana Walsh Pasulka, 1st ed., 229–246. Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA.
Hackney, Darian. 2015. Mitigating Climate Change Impact on Mountain Livelihoods Through
Students Efforts. Utah International Mountain Forum, December 23, 2015. https://www.uvu.
edu/utahimf/blog/1512climate_petition.html
Hauschildt, Kristina, Christoph Gwosć, Nicolai Netz, and Shweta Mishra. 2015. Social and
Economic Conditions of Student Life in Europe: EUROSTUDENT V 2012–2015 Synopsis of
Indicators. Bielefeld, DE: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.
Ho-Wisniewski, Evelyn. 2020. Non-Traditional Students Fall 2019. Orem, UT: Utah Valley
University Institutional Research. https://www.uvu.edu/ir/docs/executive_briefings/student_
demographics/fall_2019_non-traditional_students.pdf
Iqbal, Muhammad, Haji K. Khan, and Zaheer Abbas. 2021. Inequities and Challenges Faced by the
Girl Students in Accessing the Information Communication Technology in the Mountainous
Region of Pakistan. Research Journal of Social Sciences and Economics Review 2 (1):
488–496. https://doi.org/10.36902/rjsser-vol2-iss1-2021(488-496).
Jara, Francisco, Miguel Lagos-Zúñiga, Rodrigo Fuster, Cristian Mattar, and James McPhee.
2021. Snow Processes and Climate Sensitivity in an Arid Mountain Region, Northern Chile.
Atmosphere 12 (4): 520. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12040520.
Jaynes, Tyler L. 2021a. The Question of Algorithmic Personhood and Being (Or: On the
Tenuous Nature of Human Status and Humanity Tests in Virtual Spaces—Why All Souls Are
‘Necessarily’ Equal When Considered as Energy). J-Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal 4 (3):
452–475. https://doi.org/10.3390/j4030035.
———. 2021b. On Human Genome Manipulation and Homo technicus: The Legal Treatment
of Non-Natural Human Subjects. AI and Ethics 1 (3): 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s43681-021-00044-5.
———. 2021c. The Legal Ambiguity of Advanced Assistive Bionic Prosthetics: Where to Define
the Limits of ‘Enhanced Persons’ in Medical Treatment. Clinical Ethics 16 (3): 171–182.
———. 2021d. ‘I Am Not Your Robot:’ The Metaphysical Challenge of Humanity’s AIS
Ownership. AI & Society. Online First 37: 1689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01266-1.
Khan, Ashfak Ahmad, and Mehmet Somuncu. 2019. Is Rural Out Migration Constructive for
Sustainable Development? A Case of Mountain Community of Kıbrıscık, Turkey. Journal
of the Human and Social Science Researches 8 (4): 3337–3352. https://doi.org/10.15869/
itobiad.617221. [“Kırsal Alanlaından Dışarı Göç Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma İçin Değerli mı?
Kıbrıscık Dağ Topluluğu Örneği, Türkiye.” İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi 8,
no. 4 (2019): 3337–3352.].
Kumagai, Fumie. 2020. Municipal Power and Population Decline in Japan: Goki-Shichido
and Regional Variations. Singapore, SG: Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-981-15-4234-3.
Leskin, Paige. 2019. The 50 Most High-Tech Cities in the World. Business Insider, updated April 2,
2019. https://www.businessinsider.com/most-innovative-cities-in-the-world-in-2018-2018-11
Li, Fei-Fei. 2021. America’s Global Leadership in Human-Centered AI Can’t Come from Industry
Alone. The Hill, June 6, 2021. https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/561638-americas-
global-leadership-in-human-centered-ai-cant-come-from-industry
Logan, Wendy L., and Janna L. Scarborough. 2008. Connections Through Clubs: Collaboration
and Coordination of a Schoolwide Program. Professional School Counseling 12 (2): 157–161.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0801200212.
López, Mariana. 2020. Top 10 Tech Hubs of Latin America in 2020. Contxto. https://contxto.com/
en/news/top-tech-hubs-latin-america/
Lubbock, John. 1894. The Use of Life. London: MacMillan and Co.
Marr, Bernard. 2021. How Do We Use Artificial Intelligence Ethically? Forbes,
September 10, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2021/09/10/
how-do-we-use-artificial-intelligence-ethically/?sh=6d87460079fd
Meisenzahl, Mary. 2019. The Most Incredible Perks Silicon Valley Workers Can Take Advantage
of, from Free Rental Cars to Travel Stipends. Business Insider, September 15, 2019, https://
www.businessinsider.com/perks-that-silicon-valley-workers-can-take-advantage-of-2019-9
Mukhopadhyay, Kausiki, Pallab Paul, and Indeesh Mukhopadhyay. 2020. The Politics of Knowledge
Economy and Sustainability of Tribal Knowledge and Health in India. International Journal of
Business and Society 21 (2): 955–976. https://doi.org/10.33736/ijbs.3305.2020.
O’Toole, Tom. 2021. Legacy Companies’ Biggest AI Challenge Often Isn’t What You Might
Think. Forbes, September 15, 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomotoole/2021/09/15/
legacy-companies-biggest-ai-challenge-often-isnt-what-you-might-think/?sh=590300436184
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD].AI. 2021. OECD.AI Policy
Observatory: National AI Policies & Strategies. EC/OECD. https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards
Pagano, Wyatt. 2017. Where are the Women of Silicon Slopes? Marriott Student Review 1 (2): 11.
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/marriottstudentreview/vol1/iss2/11.
Pelletier, Stephen G. 2010. Success for Adult Students. Public Purpose 12: 2–6. https://www.aascu.
org/uploadedFiles/AASCU/Content/Root/MediaAndPublications/PublicPurposeMagazines/
Issue/10fall_adultstudents.pdf.
Price, Martin F. 2004. Introduction: Sustainable Mountain Development from Rio to Bishkek and
Beyond. In Key Issues for Mountain Areas, ed. Martin F. Price, Libor F. Jansky, and Andrei
A. Iastenia, 1–19. New York: United Nations University Press.
Pick, James B., Avijit Sarkar, and Jeremy Johnson. 2015. United States Digital Divide: State
Level Analysis of Spatial Clustering and Multivariate Determinants of ICT Utilization. Socio-
Economic Planning Sciences 49: 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2014.09.001
Price, Martin F., and Thomas Kohler. 2013. Sustainable Mountain Development. In Mountain
Geography: Physical and Human Dimensions, ed. Alton C. Byers, Donald A. Friend, Thomas
Kohler, and Larry W. Price, 333–365. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Reidl, Mark O. 2019. Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Human
Behavior and Emerging Technologies 1 (1): 33–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.117.
Romeo, Rosalaura, Fabio Grita, Fabio Parisi, and Laura Russo, eds. 2020. Vulnerability of
Mountain Peoples to Food Insecurity: Updated Data and Analysis of Drivers. Rome: FAO
and UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). https://www.fao.org/3/cb2409en/
cb2409en.pdf.
Romero, Simon. 2021. Booming Utah’s Weak Link: Surging Air Pollution. The New York
Times, September 7, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/07/us/great-salt-lake-utah-air-
quality.html
Rosalsky, Greg. 2021. Why Remote Work Might Not Revolutionize Where We Work. NPR:
Planet Money, July 13, 2021. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/07/13/1015286147/
why-remote-work-might-not-revolutionize-where-we-work
Rose, Joel. 2020. Canada Wins, U.S. Loses In Global Fight For High-Tech
Workers. NPR, January 27, 2020. https://www.npr.org/2020/01/27/799402801/
canada-wins-u-s-loses-in-global-fight-for-high-tech-workers
Shneiderman, Ben. 2020. Bridging the Gap Between Ethics and Practice: Guidelines for Reliable,
Safe, and Trustworthy Human-centered AI Systems. ACM Transactions on Interactive
Intelligent Systems 10 (4): 26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3419764.
Silversmith, Shondiin. 2021. Indigenous Traditional Knowledge to be Included in US Efforts
Against Climate Change for the First Time. Arizona Mirror, November 16, 2021. https://www.
azmirror.com/2021/11/16/indigenous-traditional-knowledge-to-be-included-in-us-efforts-
against-climate-change-for-first-time/
Spoon, Jeremy, Brittany Kruger, Richard Arnold, and M. Kate. 2021. Barcalow, and the Tribal
Revegetation Committee (TRC). In Tribal Revegetation Project Final Project Report: 92-Acre
Area, Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada.
Portland, OR: Portland State University. https://doi.org/10.2172/1773633.
Starr, S. Frederick. 2004. Conflict and Peace in Mountain Societies. In Key Issues for Mountain
Areas, ed. Martin F. Price, Libor F. Jansky, and Andrei A. Iastenia, 169–180. New York: United
Nations University Press.
Su, Norman Makoto. 2020. Threats of the Rural: Writing and Designing with Affect. In HCI
Outdoors: Theory, Design, Methods and Applications, ed. D. Scott McCrickard, Michael
Jones, and Timothy L. Stelter, 51–79. Cham, CH: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-45289-6_3.
Suzuki, Keisuke. 2011. Effects of Global Warming on Climate Conditions in the Japanese Alps
Region. In Planet Earth 2011: Global Warming Challenges and Opportunities for Policy and
Practice, ed. Elias G. Carayannis, 73–88. Rijeka, HR: InTech.
Tanner, Courtney. 2021. $15 Million to the University of Utah and $25 Million to Utah Valley
University Will Expand Computer Science Programs. The Salt Lake Tribune, updated November
1, 2021. https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2021/10/31/utah-universities-arent/
Thapa, Devinder, and Øystein Sæbø. 2014. Exploring the Link between ICT and Development
in the Context of Developing Countries: A Literature Review. The Electronic Journal of
Information Systems in Developing Countries 64 (1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-
4835.2014.tb00454.x.
Timpson, William M., Jeffrey M. Foley, Nathalie Kees, and Alina M. Waite, eds. 2014. 147
Practical Tips for Using Experiential Learning. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Tshering, Phuntshok C. 2002. Celebrating Mountain Women: A Report on a Global Gathering
in Bhutan, October 2002. Lalitpur, NP: International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development.
Tuminez, Astrid S. 2020. Guest Opinion: Stringent Completion Measures Don’t Tell the Whole
Story at Utah Universities. Deseret News, April 19 2020, https://www.deseret.com/opin-
ion/2020/4/19/21224282/uvu-education-inclusivity-equality-growth-college-applications-
graduation
UN ECOSOC. 2018. Statement Submitted by Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, The Mountain
Institute, Utah China Friendship Improvement Sharing Hands Development and Commerce,
Non-Governmental Organizations in Consultative Status with the Economic and Social
Council, Statement by Non-Governmental Organization E/CN.6/2019/NGO/64 (19 November
2018). https://undocs.org/E/CN.6/2019/NGO/64
———. 2020. Statement Submitted by Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, The Mountain
Institute, Utah China Friendship Improvement Sharing Hands Development and Commerce,
Non-Governmental Organizations in Consultative Status with the Economic and Social
Council, Statement by Non-Governmental Organization E/CN.6/2020/NGO/91 (30 November
2020). https://undocs.org/E/CN.6/2020/NGO/91
UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. 2021. Report of the Social and
Human Sciences Commission (SHS) to the 41st UNESCO General Conference, Annex, 41 C/37
(22 November 2021). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379920.page=14
UN GA. 2015. Transforming Our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
Resolution 70/1 (21 October 2015). https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/
migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf
———. 2019. Sustainable Mountain Development: Report of the Secretary-General, 74/209 (22
July 2019). https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3825219?ln=en
UN General Assembly [UN GA]. 2003. International Year of Mountains, 2002, Resolution 57/245
(30 January 2003). http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/mountain_partnership/docs/A_
RES_57_245.pdf
United Nations [UN] Economic and Social Council [ECOSOC]. 2018. Statement Submitted
by Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, The Mountain Institute, Utah China Friendship
Improvement Sharing Hands Development and Commerce, Non-Governmental Organizations
in Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council, Statement by Non-Governmental
Organization E/CN.6/2018/NGO/37/Rev.1 (20 Feb 2018). https://undocs.org/E/CN.6/2018/
NGO/37/Rev.1
Utah State Legislature. 2020. Senate. Emerging Technology Talent Initiative. S.B. 96, 63rd
Legislature, General Sess. https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/SB0096.html
Utah Valley University [UVU] Institutional Research. 2020. 2020 Fact Book, Utah Valley
University. Utah Valley University 2020. https://www.uvu.edu/ir/docs/info_about_uvu/fact_
books/2020_factbook.pdf
Vision 2030. 2020. Utah Valley University. https://www.uvu.edu/vision2030/
Wagner, Frederic H. 2007. Global Warming Effects on Climactically-Imposed Ecological
Gradients in the West. Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental Law 27 (1): 109–121.
Whitney, John. 2020. Socio-Economic Status for Students at UVU. Orem, UT: Utah Valley
University Institutional Research. https://www.uvu.edu/ir/docs/executive_briefings/student_
demographics/2020_socio_economic_status.pdf.
Wilkins, Emily J., Hadia Akbar, Tara C. Saley, Rachel Hager, Colten M. Elkin, Patrick Belmont,
Courtney G. Flint, and Jordan W. Smith. 2021. Climate Change and Utah Ski Resorts: Impacts,
Perceptions, and Adaptation Strategies. Mountain Research and Development 41 (3): R12–
R23. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-20-00065.1.
Wyatt, Linda G. 2011. Nontraditional Student Engagement: Increasing Adult Student Success and
Retention. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education 59 (1): 10–20. https://doi.org/10.108
0/07377363.2011.544977.
Gender, Health, and AI: How Using AI
to Empower Women Could Positively
Impact the Sustainable Development Goals
Tomás Gabriel García-Micó and Migle Laukyte
Abstract It appears to be something wrong if a person’s health is related to gender.

Indeed, we might have continued to link this dependency (health-gender) to other
factors—such as education or income—had it not been for the use of artificial
intelligence-based systems in medicine and healthcare, which made us more aware
of a broader picture of how medical research and practice has not taken male and
female bodies into account equally. Nonetheless, AI has to be trustworthy, and for
that purpose, it shall be lawful, ethical, and robust. But how lawful and ethical can
it be if it leaves half of humanity out of the picture? Hence the focus of this chapter
is to address how medical AI could positively impact the achievement of gender
equality as a Sustainable Development Goal (SDG). In particular, we use several
use cases to highlight how medical AI applications have made it evident that there
is an enormous data gap between male and female sex involvement in clinical trials,
disease treatment, and other medical therapies and that this data gap is the reason
why so many AI applications are biased, limited, and inefficient. Filling this gap
would mean improving and increasing data generation that would reflect particu-
larities and specificities of female bodies and enable female representation in train-
ing algorithms.
Keywords Gender · AI · Health · Empowerment · Sustainable Development Goals

· Discrimination
T. G. García-Micó (*)
Private Law Department, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
M. Laukyte
Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain
292 T. G. García-Micó and M. Laukyte
1 Introduction
Mahatma Gandhi once said that health is the real wealth, yet this health-wealth still
very much depends on whether a person is a man or a woman. This is a fact in devel-
oping countries but also a reality in rich and developed Western societies where
healthcare services represent the national pride of social welfare systems
(WHO 2016).
Therefore, there appears to be something wrong if a person’s health is related to
gender. Indeed, we might have continued to link this dependency (health-gender) to
other factors—such as education, income, or social policies—had it not been for the
technological advancements and the use of artificial intelligence-based (hereinafter,
AI) systems in medicine and healthcare, which made us more aware of a broader
picture of how medical research and practice has not taken male and female bodies
into account equally.
Research has proven that AI systems, although in certain aspects better than
humans, are unlikely to completely substitute the physicians (among many, Ahuja
2019). Nonetheless, AI has to be trustworthy, and for that purpose, it shall be lawful,
ethical, and robust (High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence 2019a). But
how lawful and ethical can it be if it leaves half of humanity out of the picture? In
fact, AI needs to receive specific input in order to learn from it before engaging in
its analysis and predictions. What happens if the team in charge of providing such
input is—deliberately or not—biased and provides only information about male
patients? Probably, the AI system will not be as trustworthy with female patients as
it will be with male patients.
Hence the focus of this chapter is to address how medical AI could positively
impact the achievement of gender equality as a Sustainable Development Goal
(SDG). In particular, we use several use cases to highlight how medical AI applica-
tions have made it evident that there is an enormous data gap between male and
female sex involvement in clinical trials, disease treatment, and other medical thera-
pies (Liu and Dipietro Mager 2016; Dusenbery 2018; Criado Perez 2019, among
many) and that this data gap is the reason why so many AI applications are biased,
limited, and inefficient. Filling this gap would mean improving and increasing data
generation that would reflect particularities and specificities of female bodies and
enable female representation in training algorithms.
The above has led us to organise the chapter as follows: In the first part, and after
a short description of the state of the art of AI in medicine, we focus on the use cases
that evidence lack of female health data in developing AI-based medical solutions.
Then, in the second part, we explain the link between gender-balanced AI tools in
medicine and SDGs. In particular, we show how more gender-balanced and inclu-
sive AI-based medical tools could not only allow us to improve female health but
also how this improvement would positively reverberate throughout other SDGs,
such as those related to good health, economic growth, innovation, and reduced
inequalities. We finish with concluding remarks.
Gender, Health, and AI: How Using AI to Empower Women Could Positively Impact… 293
Finally, one more important note before starting: When we refer to gender, we
refer to male-female genders. Although we are also aware that this approach is lim-
ited and does not reflect other, non-binary identities, in this chapter we will focus on
the binary perspective.1
2 AI, Medicine, and Gender
2.1 State of the Art: AI in Medicine
AI in healthcare is not a futuristic issue but rather a current reality. As the Academy
of Medical Royal Colleges (2019, 6) stated in its 2019 report, “Artificial Intelligence
has already arrived in healthcare. Few doubt though that we are only at the begin-
ning of seeing how it will impact patient care.” In fact, it is currently used in a vari-
ety of settings, for instance, the AI-supported IDx-DR system diagnoses diabetic
retinopathy (Meiliana et al. 2019), or it can also be used to diagnose stroke and
autism (Petrone 2018). In any event, for the time being, AI is not taking decisions
on its own but supporting physicians in decision-making processes: Complete auto-
mation of healthcare is still a very distant reality (Abbott 2020).
This supportive role of AI still means a lot: AI helps physicians to diagnose
patients’ diseases with high accuracy. In the EU, one among many is, for instance,
the REVOLVER (Repeated Evolution of Cancer) project, developed by the Institute
of Cancer Research of London and the University of Edinburgh.2 Crossing the
Atlantic, we discover that regarding AI use in healthcare, the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) provides the list of 29 AI-based medical devices3 that have
been approved in the US (Benjamens et al. 2020)4 and all of them are intended to be
used to support the physician in diagnosing or assessing how to treat a specific
patient according to the data collected from medical tests practised upon the patient.
In any case, healthcare-related applications of AI fall under the legal definition of
medical device and, therefore, require a regulatory control by competent national
authorities, which either approve or prohibit the commercialisation of the product as
1
More about the research involving these identities in medical and other domains, see Marshall
et al. (2019).
2
According to Dr Andrea Sottoriva, the team leader in evolutionary genomics and modelling at
ICR and the REVOLVER study leader, the machine learning technique has the ability to “identify
patterns in DNA mutation within cancers and forecast future genetic changes,” and it is expected
to “transform the way cancer is diagnosed, managed and treated” (Health Europa 2018).
3
Out of these 29 medical devices, 21 are used in the medical specialty of radiology (2 in cardiol-
ogy, 6 in oncology, 3 in neurology, and 4 in emergency medicine, while in the others, there is no
secondary medical specialty clearly stated), 1 in neurology, 1 in ophthalmology, 2 in endocrinol-
ogy, 3 in cardiology, and 1 in internal medicine.
4
It is hard to envisage how AI is used in the EU as there is no public database to consult for this
information. According to the MDR, there should soon be a database, Eudamed, for this purpose.
is the case of the US FDA,5 or will supervise the approval process while most of the
job is performed by the public (as is the case with the Spanish National Centre for
the Certification of Medical Devices) or private (TÜV Rheinland in Germany) enti-
ties called notified bodies.6
This is to say that there are quite a few AI-based uses in healthcare right now
approved by authorities or work in progress by researchers that promise to make a
positive change in healthcare. But promise does not mean delivery, so much more
so if the data these AI are built on are not inclusive enough. In the next section, we
briefly explain how it happens that AI are so gender ignorant.
2.2 AI in Practice: How Do AIs Work?
So as to understand why AI applications in healthcare might not be as women rep-

resentative as they should be, it is necessary to firstly understand how an AI-based
tool works. A sad reality: Software, computers, or AI do not discriminate, but
humans do. At the end of the day, AI feeds from data coming from a variety of
sources such as electronic medical records (EMR), clinical trials, tests, and other
kinds of data, and it is necessary—fundamental and critical—that someone make
sure that complete, correct, accurate, and as representative as possible datasets are
available for AI to train it on (Osoba and Welser 2017; Littman et al. 2021).
We have seen cases of what happens when these datasets include more data on
white men rather than on black women (Borgesius 2018, 29): In fact, AI produces
erroneous and imprecise results. And it is not just healthcare: A study on machine
learning-based facial analysis algorithms and datasets, particularly commercial
gender classifiers, shows that the system based on such algorithms was clearly
biased and that the margin of error was higher when AI had to detect a woman.
Indeed, in case of woman detection, there is a rate of error of more than a 12% in
comparison with men (Boulamwini and Gebru 2018).
If we look at the way AI functions, we could distinguish a few phases. In the first
phase, the developer of AI bestows the software with a code to allow it to process
information (Bathaee 2018). Then, in the second phase, once the AI is installed, it
obtains and processes data through sensors installed in the hardware (cameras,
5
According to the FDA, there are three classes of medical devices: class I, class II, and class
III. Depending on the risk associated with the use of the device, the intended uses, the duration of
the use, etc., a medical device should be classified in one or another class. Class I devices are sub-
ject to general controls (such as good manufacturing practices, labelling requirements, etc.); class
II devices to special controls as determined by the FDA on a case-by-case basis and require that the
manufacturer files a premarket notification with the FDA; and class III devices which need to go
through the most stringent regulatory process: premarket approval.
6
According to the provisions of the Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of
the Council, of 5 April 2017, on medical devices (hereinafter, the MDR).
microphones, keyboards, websites, and thermometers, among others).7 In the third

phase, the AI groups this data for the physician by discovering links and patterns, by
(re)organising data, and by performing other tasks, so that he or she could have a
more individual patient-focused perspective of this data. In the future, this later
function could evolve to determine the best course of action (choice of treatment,
drugs, therapies, etc.) that the physician should follow so as to help patients. If the
AI is developed enough, it will be able to execute this course of action through its
actuators (High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence 2019b).
Nonetheless, the key issue after providing the AI with data is to understand how
the system transforms the data that it got from the environment, represented by a
variety of data, such as temperature, images, sounds or ultrasounds, written text, etc.
to a uniform-coded data that the AI could process and discover patterns in. The
answer is not easy as it depends on specific technology that AI is based on, which
also defines its complexity: For instance, it could be machine learning techniques
that include deep learning and reinforcement learning, machine reasoning, or robot-
ics (Independent High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence 2019b).
Therefore, the whole process of data processing by AI can be an enigma even for
its own developers. This phenomenon is known as the black box (Bathaee 2018;
Watson et al. 2019 among many): Black box algorithms are those whose function-
ing—that is, ways in which the algorithm moves from input (data) to output
(result)—is not known. Indeed, the workings of artificial neural networks are
impenetrable and remain unreadable to humans (Bathaee 2018). Black box algo-
rithm in this sense represents a lack of transparency, and, in particular as concerns
healthcare, patients expect a very high level of safety and security in the healthcare
system and in (regardless whether AI-based or not) medical devices it relies on.
That is why, in recent years, there has been a proliferation of scientific literature
discussing how to make AI algorithms explainable and interpretable: Among many,
researchers have elaborated the concept of Explainable AI (hereinafter, XAI)
(Gunning et al. 2019; Barredo Arrieta et al. 2020, among many). If this aim is
reached—if we manage to build AI that is as complex as it might be possible for
humans to understand in terms of ways in which it reaches the decisions and predic-
tions—people will trust such systems8 that will be open to show how they avoid
7
It is worth highlighting that the sensors are installed in the hardware in case of an embedded
software, but if we are dealing with stand-alone software, the process of obtaining information is
done through non-physical sensors. An example could be an Internet browser or website which
uses cookies to obtain information about the user’s search preferences to provide him or her with
a more personalised experience. In this regard, generally women have less access to any kind of
technologies, including but not limited to the Internet (Cirillo et al. 2020).
8
Humans should not be seen from the lens of objectiveness. We are not born to act in terms of all-
or-nothing dynamics. In terms of economic rationality, this scenario is not desired as economic
theories applied to human behaviour (behavioural economics) consider that humans can be nudged
towards reaching a specific objective by changing the incentives at stake. A person might prefer a
more fallible treatment that grants him or her a 50% chance of being cured (being the other 50%
an innocuous result) than a treatment that is promised to be more effective, but with an unknown
rate of error.
biases, meet regulatory standards and normative and policy requirements, and con-
tribute to the development of better design of AI in healthcare (The Royal Society
2019, 9–10).
Knowing how the AI processes data—how its “brain” works—is also crucial to
understand which dataset has been fed into the machine, and consequently whether
the outcomes are biased or not. This knowledge clearly impacts on the scope of this
research: In the following part, we look at real-life examples of how AI is not meet-
ing expectations of gender equality.
2.3 Use Cases: Where Are All the Women Gone?
The practice of ignoring women in medicine is nothing new: Furthermore, it is

either limited to humans because female animals have been also left out of the neu-
rosciences and biomedical research (Beery and Zucker 2011; McGregor et al. 2016).
Nor it is just the case of medicine and healthcare: From seatbelts to emojis, from
movies to historical figures on the banknotes, from statues in our public spaces to
school textbooks, from sports to comics, everywhere women are underrepresented,
forgotten, or simply absent (Criado Perez 2019).
It is true that many decisions on what data to use and what datasets to employ are
based on data availability rather than on its suitability (Schwartz et al. 2021): Lack
of female clinical data, caused by insufficient female involvement in medical
research, is one of the main causes, and this lack of representation is the most com-
mon bias that we find introduced in the AI (Cirillo et al. 2020).9
Digital biomarkers are another powerful tool empowered by digital smart tech-
nologies that enable to collect a variety of psychological, physiological, and behav-
ioural indicators through the human-computer interfaces or wearables, portables,
implantables, or other devices (Cirillo et al. 2020). However, the data collected by
these biomarkers is useless—and the algorithm using this data is biased—if these
markers feed the dataset overrepresented by men (ibid).
Furthermore, the lack of data in certain cases is completely unjustified because it
is women and not men who are mainly suffering from certain ailments, and yet the
treatments are designed, drugs tested, and procedures elaborated on men. For
instance, women suffer from depression more than men because of female hor-
monal fluctuations of oestrogen, yet the researchers rely on male bodies to test
drugs or therapies because men do not suffer from behavioural alterations related to
these hormonal fluctuations (Albert 2015). There are many more examples about
female-male differences in many other organs, their functioning, frequency of dis-
eases, reactions to vaccines and drugs, sensitivity to pain, and so on and so forth
(Criado Perez 2019; Cirillo et al. 2020). For instance, everyone can remember the
9
Other biases are historical bias, measurement bias, aggregation bias, evaluation bias, and algorith-
mic bias: All these biases are explained in Cirillo et al. (2020).
main symptoms of a heart attack: In men these symptoms are mainly extreme chest
pressure, difficulties to speak, and pain of the right arm. But in women, they are
different and include indigestion, discomfort or pain in the higher part of the body,
or shortness of breath (Shannon 2018).
Let us focus on cardiology: There are five AI-based cardiology medical devices
put in the market in the USA, namely, the Arterys Cardio DL, the EchoMD
Automated Ejection Fraction Software, the AI-ECG Platform, the EchoGo Core,
and the Eko Analysis Software (Benjamens et al. 2020). The issue with the above-
mentioned cardiological AI-based medical devices lies with the data provided, or in
particular with the lack of it, as women and minority groups have been traditionally
underrepresented in the field of cardiology (Tat et al. 2020). Furthermore, Tahhan
et al. (2020) also showed that in a review of 460 acute coronary syndrome clinical
trials enrolling 1,067,520 patients, women represented 26.8% and men 73.2%.
Other studies (Daly et al. 2006; Liaudat et al. 2018) also show that men are two to
three times more likely than women to be sent to a cardiologist when they describe
feeling chest pain.
Another example is AI-based computer-aided diagnosis (hereinafter CAD) sys-
tems for various thoracic diseases. Researchers used the National Institute of
Health’s Chest-XRay14 dataset, including more than a hundred thousand chest
X-ray images belonging to more than thirty thousand patients who were diagnosed
with a myriad of different thoracic diseases. In terms of gender, the population was
56.5% male and 43.5% female. In order to perform the study, different scenarios
were created for the AI-based CAD system to function: 100% male–0% female
images, 75% male–25% female images, 50% male–50% female images, 25%
male–75% female images, and 0% male–100% images (Larrazabal et al. 2020). The
discovery was to see that when the datasets are perfectly balanced—that is, when it
has 50% male–50% female images—the AI-based CAD system performs better for
both genders without any relevant gender imbalances, nonetheless for some specific
diseases.
It would not be fair to paint all AI in healthcare and medicine as gender-biased to
the detriment of women: AI has also been used to address typical female medical
problems, such as detection of endometriosis (Guerriero et al. 2021), polycystic
ovary syndrome (Sumathi et al. 2021), and ovarian cancer (Akazawa and Hashimoto
2020), besides many others. However, we also see that these initiatives are very
recent, and although AI has been around for decades, until recently it did not address
or analyse the female body, taking for granted that the human body is male.10
At this point, it is important to remember something we stated earlier in this
chapter: AI is not imbalanced, nor biased, nor does it blatantly discriminate.
Everything is in the hands of those who design the software’s code, of those who
train the AI, and of those who compile the datasets that will feed the AI. Not with
the aim of oversimplifying the complex field we are in, but research has shown that
10
There are many initiatives that contribute in making gender equality a reality in the research set-
tings: For a list of initiatives in AI, see UNESCO (2020); for recommendations to incorporation
gender and sex in research, see McGregor et al. (2016).
perfectly imbalanced datasets are the panacea to avoid gender imbalances and
biases in medical AI (Larrazabal et al. 2020). Here is where ethics plays an impor-
tant role: Instead of focussing on providing indiscriminately large datasets without
a detailed analysis of the sample and population referred in it, physicians and AI
developers should be focussed on studying the gender and racial implications of the
data which they will feed the AI.
3 Gender-Balanced AI for SDG
In the previous section, we have briefly looked at the possibilities of AI in medicine

and healthcare: To be sure, there is much more than we have space to describe.
However, our goal is not to list all the applications that exist, but rather to question
their trustworthiness and reliability, bearing in mind the lack of data on women to
develop, train, and improve these applications.
In this part, we turn to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and elaborate
on how gender-inclusive and balanced AI in healthcare could contribute in achiev-
ing them: First of all, we focus on the gender equality SDG (SDG 5), and then we
also argue that there are also other SDGs—such as good health and well-being
(SDG 3), economic growth (SDG 8), innovation (SDG 9), and reduced inequalities
(SDG 10)—that could benefit from such AI.
3.1 Gender-Balanced AI and Gender Equality as a Part

of Sustainable Development: Focus on SDG 5
Making AI more representative of the female part of the population in healthcare is

obviously a beneficial trend for the SDG of gender equality: Indeed, taking women
into account is the essence of gender equality. We are stressing again that AI in
healthcare and medicine is just the tip of the iceberg if we consider that women have
generally less access to the Internet, mobile phones, and other technologies (Cirillo
et al. 2020). Therefore, gender equality is built not only by making the technology
companies take women into account while developing AI tools, teaching algorithms
about the human body, and building datasets on female health (top-down approach)
but also by making women able to participate in data collection by closing this
gender-based digital divide (bottom-up approach). This is to say that AI alone can-
not close the gender gap, because this gap exists not that much because of technical
reasons or digital divide but because of structural and endemic forms of female
downgrading that every society suffers from to a higher or lesser extent.
But let us assume that we will be able to close this gap at least in terms of health-
care AI-based applications: How would it affect women? This is a hypothetical sce-
nario, but we need to visualise just to understand what stakes are at play.
The AI-based applications that we have seen above—AI applications for cardiol-
ogy and CAD system for thoracic diseases—reveal the already known truth that
women are not as representative as men in terms of medical research and clinical
trials. If the lack of female data is a severe issue in itself, it can become even worse
in an AI-based scenario: If we want a medical AI to perform—that is, to analyse,
predict, reveal new patterns, or in other ways make us understand and discover more
on human body—the datasets it is trained on need to be as inclusive as possible, not
only of female data but also of data on ethnic minorities (see Vinuesa et al. 2020).
It is of utmost importance that further research in the medical field is focussed on
producing data on women. If women are incentivised to take part in clinical trials
and in applied research, we will have inclusive datasets which will be more repre-
sentative and, therefore, will improve the medical AI trustworthiness in its results
when applied to any kind of medical condition. Doing so will set the path to reach
the effective fulfilment of target 5.1 of SDG 5, which is to end all forms of discrimi-
nation against women and girls everywhere: To have and to use only male data-
based datasets is a direct discrimination against women because we are not granting
them access to health in the same conditions as men (Vinuesa et al. 2020), which in
turn is against, among other aspects of health, the target 5.6 related to access to
sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.
In fact, there are many authors who are proposing that AIs should be programmed
following the value-sensitive design (VSD), understood as a “theoretically grounded
approach to the design of technology that accounts for human values in a principled
and comprehensive manner throughout the design process” (Friedman et al. 2013,
2): Values represented by SDGs could be a basis to articulate the needed design
changes, in particular in medical AI applications (Umbrello et al. 2021).
This might sound as a future action plan, but there are specific measures that
could be undertaken by national authorities to make this plan a reality. For instance,
when a medical AI is undergoing the conformity assessment by a notified body, it
should be mandatory to prove that the datasets used to train the AI are inclusive.
Only those medical AI whose developers prove this inclusivity should be allowed to
commercialise their AI-based products.
Furthermore, inclusivity of datasets also pose another issue: The female reluc-
tance to participate in clinical trials is a well-known problem (among many, see Liu
and Dipietro Mager 2016), yet it should not be solved by getting this data from
those who might not be aware of their personal and medical data-related rights in
developing countries, rather than dealing with the reasons why data is missing in the
first place in developed countries. In this regard, the adequate term would be avoid
“data colonialism” (Couldry and Mejias 2019, 336) that would normalise “the
exploitation of human beings through data, just as historical colonialism appropri-
ated territory and resources and ruled subjects to profit.” In this regard, data colo-
nialism would make a step forward and exploit women from developing countries,
pushing them to participate in trials and tests and thus produce data to train AI.
3.2 Impact on Other SDGs: Health, Economics, Innovation,

and Inequalities—SDGs 3, 8, 9, and 10
It goes without saying that gender-balanced medical AI could also positively impact
the SDG 3 dedicated to health improvements: In particular, as concerns exclusively
female problems, such as maternal mortality, reproductive rights, and reproductive
health, we still do not have a wide spectrum of specific female healthcare-oriented
AI. Although things are slowly moving forward, for instance, Inne has developed a
home fertility monitoring system that permits women to monitor their fertility on
the basis of their saliva,11 we need more investments and more applications to make
sure that at least some of them will contribute—directly or indirectly—to address
SDG3 targets related to birth, reproduction, and newborn mortality.
When it comes to other SDGs, in particular SDG 8 dedicated to guaranteeing
decent work and economic growth, it is quite obvious that any technological innova-
tion—including but not limited to AI—boosts economic growth (among many,
Panth 1997). However, the challenges for the twenty-first century are not to promote
economic growth at any price but to promote it in compliance with sustainability
requirements. According to the research published in Harvard Business Review,
sustainability has always been “an integral part of development” (Nidumolu et al.
2009), and so much so that it has to be in the data-driven, AI-enhanced environment
that we are already living in.
We are still grappling with the idea of sustainable AI, and there is little to no
academic literature on it (van Wynsberghe 2021): This author links sustainable AI
to greater ecological integrity and social justice, and no social justice is possible if
AI is unbalanced in terms of gender representation. Therefore, we can argue that
gender-respectful AI in medicine and healthcare could—at least partially—fall
under the concept of sustainable AI and contribute to the SDG 8 that promotes “sus-
tained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth,” as in particular specified by the
targets 8.1–8.4.12
But AI that we envision in this work goes further: Gender-oriented AI would also
positively impact on employment, which is another of SDG 8 objectives (in particu-
lar targets 8.5 and 8.6). In fact, building gender into AI means turning the AI devel-
oper teams gender-balanced in the first place. This could lead to higher percentage
of female employees in high-tech companies and higher investment, attention, and
support to gender balance in educational institutions, where computer science, soft-
ware engineering, and similar subject matters are being taught and where female
11
More on this tool, see https://www.inne.io/en/home/
12
However, we do not address here the sustainability of AI development and in particular its impact
on the environment that has been described in Strubell et al. (2019): The authors show the cost of
training neural network models for Natural Language Processing—besides others—in terms of its
impact on energy consumption and invite academic and industry stakeholders to choose environ-
mentally friendly hardware and software.
students even in the most advanced countries still represent the minority in the sta-
tistics of enrolment (Te-Ping 2020).
The debate on economic growth and sustainability is inseparable from the SDG
9 which focusses on inclusive and sustainable industrialisation and fostering of
innovation. For instance, target 9.5 refers to the objective of increasing numbers of
research and development workers, and this increase should be brought into being
by taking into account gender balance, because without a gender-balanced work-
force, we will not be able to develop gender-balanced technologies, including
AI-based applications in medicine and healthcare.
Realisation of the SDGs 8 and 9 could positively echo on the SDG 10 that aims
to reduce inequalities and in particular highlights the importance to reach income
growth (target 10.1); social, economic, and political inclusion (target 10.2); and
equal opportunities (target 10.3). It goes without saying that building gender-
balanced technologies in any domain could positively impact on these objectives:
However, in case of healthcare, this impact would be even greater because turning
back to the words of Mahatma Gandhi that health is wealth, gender-balanced AI in
medicine would provide women all over the world with the biggest wealth there is.
4 Conclusions and Future Research
In this chapter, we have briefly looked at the promising uses that AI has been put to
in the field of medicine and healthcare and have referred to real cases to support our
thesis that there is a danger to perpetuate the trend to ignore female data in develop-
ing—at least some of—the AI-based applications to improve our health, treat our
diseases, and, in general, understand our bodies.
Some readers might contest that the gender question is no news: Indeed, gender
bias has been so long—and continues to be!—an intrinsic part of our societies that
getting rid of it takes time and this continuous reminding about it does not help but
irritates and provokes rejection. We see the point of this critique but do not agree:
We have to continue talking about how women are continuously forgotten, not taken
into account, or simply ignored, so much more so if taking them into account could
lead not only to a more just and humane society but also to a better future of
our planet.
And this is where the major contribution of this work comes into play: We have
argued that taking women into account not only saves women lives and is beneficial
in a variety of social, economic, cultural, and other ways but also that it could con-
tribute in making our planet a better—safer and more sustainable—place for us and
for future generations.
Bibliography
Abbott, R. 2020. The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. 2019. Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare. Available at
https://www.aomrc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Artificial_intelligence_in_health-
care_0119.pdf.
Ahuja, A.S. 2019. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine on the Future Role of the
Physician. PeerJ: Life & Environment 7. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC6779111/.
Akazawa, M., and K. Hashimoto. 2020. Artificial Intelligence in Ovarian Cancer Diagnosis.
Anticancer Research 40 (8): 4795–4800.
Albert, P.R. 2015. Why Is Depression More Prevalent in Women? Journal of Psychiatry and
Neuroscience 40 (4): 219–221.
Barredo Arrieta, A., N. Díaz-Rodríguez, J. Del Ser, A. Bennetot, S. Tabik, A. Barbado, S. Garcia,
S. Gil-López, D. Molina, R. Benjamins, R. Chatila, and F. Herrera. 2020. Explainable Artificial
Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges Toward Responsible
AI. Information Fusion 58: 82–115.
Bathaee, Y. 2018. The Artificial Intelligence Black Box and the Failure of Intent and Causation.
Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 31 (2): 889–938.
Beery, A.K., and I. Zucker. 2011. Sex Bias in Neuroscience and Biomedical Research.
Neuroscience: Faculty Publications, Smith College, Northampton, MA. Available at https://
core.ac.uk/download/pdf/28735 5536.pdf.
Benjamens, S., P. Dhunnoo, and B. Meskó. 2020. The State of Artificial Intelligence-Based FDA-
Approved Medical Devices and Algorithms: An Online Database. NPJ Digital Medicine
118: 1–8.
Borgesius, F.Z. 2018. Discrimination, Artificial Intelligence, and Algorithmic Decision-Making.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Boulamwini, J., and T. Gebru. 2018. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in
Commercial Gender Classification. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 81: 1–15.
Cirillo, et al. 2020. Sex and Gender Differences and Biases in Artificial Intelligence for Biomedicine
and Healthcare. NPJ Digital Medicine 3(81). Available at https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41746-020-0288-5#citeas.
Couldry, N., and U.A. Mejias. 2019. Data Colonialism: Rethinking the Big Data’s Relation to the
Contemporary Subject. Television and New Media 20 (4): 336–349.
Criado Perez, C. 2019. Invisible Women: Data Bias in World Designed for Men. New York:
Abram Press.
Daly, C., F. Clemens, J.L. Lopez Sendon, L. Tavazzi, E. Boersma, N. Danchin, F. Delahaye,
A. Gitt, D. Julian, D. Mulcahy, W. Ruzyllo, K. Thygesen, F. Verheugt, and K.M. Fox. 2006.
Gender Differences in the Management and Clinical Outcome of Stable Angina. Circulation
113: 490–498.
Dusenbery, M. 2018. Doing Harm: The Truth About How Bad Medicine and Lazy Science Leave
Women Dismissed, Misdiagnosed and Sick. New York: HarperOne.
Friedman, B., P.H. Kahn Jr., A. Borning, and A. Huldtgren. 2013. Value Sensitive Design and
Information Systems. In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening Up the Laboratory,
ed. N. Doorn, D. Schuurbiers, I. van de Poel, and M.E. Gorman, 55–95. Dordrecht: Springer.
Guerriero, S., et al. 2021. Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Detection of Rectosigmoid Deep
Endometriosis. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
261: 29–33.
Gunning, D., M. Stefik, J. Choi, T. Miller, S. Stumpf, and G. Yang. 2019. XAI-Explainable
Artificial Intelligence. Science Robotics 4: 1–2.
Health Europa. 2018. Towards Personalised Medicine: Artificial Intelligence in Cancer. Interview
accessible at https://www.healtheuropa.eu/artificial-intelligence-in-cancer/88685/.
High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. 2019a. Ethics Guidelines for

Trustworthy AI. Report accessible at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/
ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai.
———. 2019b. A Definition of AI: Main Capabilities and Disciplines. Report accessible at https://
ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/ai_hleg_definition_of_ai_18_december_1.pdf.
Larrazabal, A.J., N. Nieto, V. Peterson, D.H. Milone, and E. Ferrante. 2020. Gender Imbalance
in Medical Imaging Datasets Produces Biased Classifiers for Computer-Aided Diagnosis.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (23): 12592–12594.
Liaudat, C.C., P. Vaucher, T. De Francesco, N. Jaunin-Stadler, L. Herzig, F. Verdon, B. Favrat,
I. Locatelli, and C. Clair. 2018. Sex/Gender Bias in the Management of Chest Pain in
Ambulatory Care. Women’s Health 14: 1–9.
Littman, M.L., I. Ajunwa, G. Berger, C. Boutilier, M. Currie, F. Doshi-Velez, G. Hadfield,
M.C. Horowitz, C. Isbell, H. Kitano, K. Levy, T. Lyons, M. Mitchell, J. Shah, S. Sloman,
S. Vallor, and T. Walsh. 2021. Gathering Strength, Gathering Storms: The One Hundred
Year Study on Artificial Intelligence. Available at https://ai100.stanford.edu/2021-report/
gathering-strength-gathering-storms-one-hundred-year-study-artificial-intelligence.
Liu, K.A., and N.A. Dipietro Mager. 2016. Women’s Involvement in Clinical Trials: Historical
Perspective and Future Implications. Pharmacy Practice 14(1). Available at https://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC4800017/.
Marshall, Z., et al. 2019. Documenting Research with Transgender, Nonbinary, and Other Gender
Diverse (Trans) Individuals and Communities: Introducing the Global Trans Research Evidence
Map. Transgender Health 4(1). Available at https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/
trgh.2018.0020.
McGregor, A.J., M Hasnain, K Sandberg, M.F Morrison, M Berlin and J Trott. 2016. How to Study
the Impact of Sex and Gender in Medical Research: A Review of Resources. Biology of Sex
Differences 7 (Suppl 1): 61–72.
Meiliana, A., et al. 2019. Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare. The Indonesian Biomedical Journal
11 (2): 125–135.
Nidumolu, R., et al. 2009. Why Sustainability Is Now the Key Driver of Innovation.
Harvard Business Review, September 2009. Available at https://hbr.org/2009/09/
why-sustainability-is-now-the-key-driver-of-innovation.
Osoba, O., and W. Welser IV. 2017. An Intelligence in Our Image. The Risks of Bias and Errors
in Artificial Intelligence. RAND Corporation. Available at https://www.rand.org/content/dam/
rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1700/RR1744/RAND_RR1744.pdf.
Panth, S. 1997. Technological Innovation, Industrial Evolution, and Economic Growth. London/
New York: Garland Publishing.
Petrone, J. 2018. FDA Approves Stroke-Detecting AI Software. Nature Biotechnology 36: 290.
Schwartz, R., et al. 2021. A Proposal for Identifying and Managing Bias in Artificial Intelligence,
Draft NIST Special Publication 1270. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Available
at https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Special Publications/NIST.SP.1270-draft.pdf.
Shannon, J. 2018. Heart Attack – It’s Different for Women. Irish Heart Foundation. Available at
https://irishheart.ie/news/heart-attack-its-different-for-women/.
Strubell, et al. 2019. Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP. Available at
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.02243.pdf.
Sumathi, M., et al. 2021. Study and Detection of PCOS Related Diseases Using CNN. IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1070. Available at https://iopscience.
iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/1070/1/012062/meta.
Tahhan, A.S., M. Vaduganathan, S.J. Greene, A. Alrohaibani, M. Raad, M. Gafeer, G.C. Fonarow,
P.S. Douglas, D.L. Bhatt, and J. Butler. 2020. Enrollment of Older Patients, Women, and
Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups in Contemporary Acute Coronary Syndrome Clinical Trials. A
Systematic Review. JAMA Cardiology 5(6): E1–E9.
Tat, E., D.L. Bhatt, and M.G. Rabbat. 2020. Addressing Bias: Artificial Intelligence in
Cardiovascular Medicine. The Lancet 2: e635–e636.
Te-Ping, C. 2020. Women Founders of AI Startups Take Aim at Gender Bias. Wall Street Journal,
29 September 2021.
The Royal Society. 2019. Explainable AI: The Basics. Policy Briefing. Available at https://royal-
society.org/-/media/policy/projects/explainable-ai/AI-and-interpretability-policy-briefing.pdf.
Umbrello, S., M. Capasso, M. Balistreri, A. Pirni, and F. Merenda. 2021. Value Sensitive Design
to Achieve the UN SDGs with AI: A Case of Elderly Care Robots. Minds and Machines 31:
395–419.
UNESCO. 2020. Artificial Intelligence and Gender Equality. Report available at https://en.unesco.
org/AI-and-GE-2020.
Van Wynsberghe, A. 2021. Sustainable AI: AI for Sustainability and the Sustainability of AI. AI
and Ethics 1: 213–218.
M. Tegmark, and F.F. Nerini. 2020. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 11: 233–242.
Watson, D., J. Krutzinna, I. Bruce, C. Griffiths, I. McInnes, M. Barnes, and L. Floridi. 2019.
Clinical Applications of Machine Learning Algorithms: Beyond the Black Box. Available at
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3352454.
WHO. 2016. Women’s Health and Well-Being in Europe: Beyond the Mortality Advantage. Report
accessible at https://www.euro.who.int/ en/health-topics/health-determinants/gender/publica-
tions/2016/ womens-health-and-well-being-in-europe-beyond-the-mortality-advantage-2016.
Smart Control of Drinking Water Grids
Using IoT
Jalal Dziri and Tahar Ezzedine
Abstract Drinking water distribution systems facilitate carrying potable water

from water resources such as lakes, rivers, and water tanks to industrial, commer-
cial, and residential consumers through complex pipe networks. This system may be
affected by pollution or leaks. Drinking water quality monitoring is essential these
days as the available water is polluted and can cause several diseases. Hence, it’s
necessary to prevent any intrusion into water distribution systems and to detect pol-
lution momentarily. In addition, it’s fundamental to detect and locate leaks that
constitute a loss of water, which can cause damage to the infrastructure and can be
a source of contamination. In this, we expose a detailed solution to provide water
management with capabilities such as measuring, sensing, optimizing, and detect-
ing the status of water and supporting infrastructure. First, we start with the detailed
architecture of our smart system. Then, we reveal an adopted monitoring system for
water quality analysis based on machine learning. Finally, we developed a distrib-
uted algorithm that detects and locates forthwith leaks in the water distribu-
tion system.
Keywords Water · Quality · Monitoring · Leak detection · WSN
1 Introduction
Liquid water (H2O) seems, at first glance, to be a very simple molecule, consisting
of just two hydrogen atoms bonded to an oxygen atom. However, it is an essential
chemical component for life. The importance of water in human life continues to
grow under the considerable needs of modern civilization. In addition, in much of
J. Dziri (*) · T. Ezzedine

Communication System Laboratory Sys’Com, National Engineering School of Tunis,
University Tunis El Manar, BP, Tunis, Tunisia
306 J. Dziri and T. Ezzedine
the world, the quality of distributed drinking water has become a key factor in pub-
lic health and economic development. At the same time, water can also be a source
of disease. According to a report by the World Health Organization, five million
infants and children die each year from diarrheal diseases due to contamination of
food or drinking water. In developing countries, about 80% of diseases are linked to
poor water supply and sanitation conditions (Agensi et al. 2019; Akinde et al. 2019).
Therefore, the consumption of drinking water must be given special attention.
Conventional monitoring of water quality involves the manual collection of sam-
ples from different points of the water distribution network, which are then sent to
strategic laboratories for contaminant tests (Sartory and Watkins 1998; Plummer
and Long 2007). In Tunisia, the water treatment station “Ghadir El Golla” uses
independent portable detection probes that should be immersed in water sources to
detect the various water quality parameters. Physicochemical and microbiological
tests are conducted weekly in small villages and at least twice weekly in large cities.
However, this traditional approach to water quality control is very inefficient
because it is expensive, requires a lot of work, and does not provide real-time results.
Continuous monitoring of drinking water quality can leverage wireless sensor
technology. A wireless sensor network (WSN) is a self-configuring network of
small sensor nodes communicating among themselves using radio signals and
deployed to monitor physical or environmental conditions, such as temperature,
sound, vibration, or pollutants and to cooperatively pass their data through the net-
work to the main location or sink where the data can be observed and analyzed (Hou
et al. 2018; Du et al. 2018; Li et al. 2014). These wireless systems are populated by
resource-constrained nodes, have unreliable communication links, and have low
data rates (Alioua et al. 2016). To address this problem, new protocols and algo-
rithms have been specifically designed for the WSN environment.
This work involves creating an intelligent system for controlling the quality of
distributed drinking water. This system is based on a WSN to detect in real time
such an infection in the water distribution network. This bloc also requires the con-
trol of leaks in water pipes since these can be a waste of money and pose a danger
to public health (Friedman et al. 2005). Contaminants can seep into pipes where the
water escapes when the pressure drops in the system.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In Sect. 2, we will present some
related works. Section 3 presents our system architecture. The fourth section is
devoted to unveiling the proposed system for water quality monitoring. The system
presents a new model for water quality analysis based on machine learning. Section
5 describes our leak detection algorithms in the water distribution network. In Sect.
6, we present some results evaluating our contribution. Finally, Sect. 7 specifies the
conclusion and gives several perspectives.
Smart Control of Drinking Water Grids Using IoT 307
2 Related Works
This section reviews the relevant works for monitoring of water distribution net-
work using the WSN platform. Some works have focused on the monitoring of
drinking water quality. Others have been interested in controlling leaks in water pipes.
2.1 Water Quality Monitoring Systems
The use of wireless sensor networks for water quality control is particularly attrac-
tive due to the low cost of the sensors, the ability to acquire and process data at
multiple distributed sampling points, and the possibility to communicate the data
using low-power wireless communication which allows decision-makers to receive
data from multiple remote sensors in real time.
In recent years, assistance and research programs have been developed to
improve the safety and security of drinking water systems (Pappu et al. 2017; Egri
et al. 2011). In (Koditala and Pandey 2018), Koditala et al. highlighted a practical
and economical solution to monitor the water quality, especially in rural areas. This
solution focuses on measuring the quality of water using pH, turbidity, and tempera-
ture sensors. An IoT-based solution to monitor the water quality in real time is pre-
sented in (Shafi et al. 2018). The proposed system provides remote monitoring of
water quality assessment along with water flow control via a mobile application.
Four machine learning algorithms including support vector machine (SVM),
k-nearest neighbor (KNN), single-layer neural network, and deep neural network
have been applied for the classification of water quality. Similarly, another case of
study is presented in (Chen et al. 2018) to monitor the water contamination via the
implementation of SVM based on color layout descriptor (CLD) and fast Fourier
transform (FFT). In the case of (Usachev et al. 2019), a system that simulates the
state of water quality in the Moscow waters was proposed. This system is based on
the tools for analyzing big data and machine learning. The neural network was
trained, which classifies the state of the reservoir into good and deviant. Another
water quality monitoring system based on a wireless sensor network is presented in
(Yue and Ying 2011) using solar power. The system is constituted by a base station
and several sensor nodes. The sensor nodes are powered by a solar power module,
while the data connection between the node and base station is realized using WSN
technology. On the node side, water quality data is collected by different sensors
such as pH, oxygen density, and turbidity.
Till now, despite the numerous strategies developed for water quality manage-
ment, there is a lack of a specific system that can be used to assess in real time the
quality of water using all physicochemical and microbiological water parameters. In
addition, the machine learning classification techniques are generally applied with-
out any data transformation in the database. In the context of Tunisia, we propose a
real-time system that monitors the water quality according to physicochemical and
microbiological parameters. The system uses a data aggregation algorithm to

improve the performance of the classification algorithms.
2.2 Leak Detection Solutions in the Water

Distribution Network
The loss and damage caused by the leaks required techniques and new approaches
to minimize their negative impact as quickly as possible. As a result, many research-
ers have devoted their efforts to the development of a wide variety of techniques for
detecting and locating leaks. Indeed, an observation of the literature and the work
applied to leak detection makes it possible to identify two main categories of leak
detection systems: static detection and dynamic detection. Although each category
can identify and locate leaks, it is not uncommon to use a combination of the two
categories (Romano et al. 2017). These two classes can be defined as follows:
Static detection systems: these are systems that rely on sensors and data collec-
tors which are placed in the water distribution network and which can transmit the
data periodically to the network management center. This data can be used to iden-
tify and locate leaks.
Dynamic detection systems are systems that rely on the mobility of leak detec-
tion devices to an area where there is a suspected leak to conduct an investigation.
The main distinction between the two classes is that static detection systems can
notify the water network management center of the existence of a leak almost
immediately, while dynamic detection systems are required to have information on
the possibility of a leak to be able for an investigation. On the other hand, dynamic
detection systems can locate a leak almost immediately under ideal operating condi-
tions, while static detection systems can locate a leak in a certain area and are also
more prone to false alarms.
Both classes encompass a wide variety of technologies to provide an accurate
leak detection system, but the technologies are not limited to a single class. For
example, acoustic technologies can be dynamic and moved from place to place
periodically to detect leaks (Hunaidi and Wang 2006), or they can be embedded in
the network (El-Zahab et al. 2016).
Most of the existing acoustic leak detection techniques rely on external measure-
ments of sound emitted from the turbulent jet of water escaping the pipe. In (Khulief
et al. 2011), Khulief et al. present an experimental investigation that addresses the
feasibility and potential of in-pipe acoustic measurements for leak detection. In the
case of (Cataldo et al. 2014), three different techniques, namely, time domain reflec-
tometry (TDR), ground-penetrating radar (GPR), and electrical resistivity tomogra-
phy (ERT) were experimentally tested for water leak detection in underground
pipes. A noninvasive method of pressure monitoring is designed and developed
based on the force-sensitive resistor (FSR) technology (Sadeghioon et al. 2014).
Novel techniques utilizing machine learning and advanced statistical methods have
been recently developed for the detection and approximate location of leaks
(Mounce et al. 2011; Ye and Fenner 2011; Romano et al. 2012, 2017).
As the works cited do not distinguish between small and large leaks, which are
two phenomena with different characteristics, we propose a new contribution which
consists in creating a control system for small and large leaks simultaneously.
3 The Proposed System Architecture
Our system represents an information system based on a computer platform and a

wireless sensor network that covers the water distribution network. The overall sys-
tem architecture is shown in Fig. 1.
The water distribution system (water storage tanks, pumping station, and treat-
ment centers) is covered by a WSN which is composed of sensor nodes placed in a
hierarchical topology and base stations (sink nodes). Each base station communi-
cates with the control center which comprises a computing platform.
The IT platform has the following functionality:
Switch
Control of anomalies
LAN Leak detection
Internet
Quality model
Supervision
Storage
link
Radio
Computer Platform
User Router
Water distribution network
Base station Pumping

covered by a WSN
station
Storage tank
Water pipe
Water
treatment
center
Customer
Storage tank
Fig. 1 The overall system architecture

• A data collection module: This is an interface that collects data from the
sinks of WSN.
• A visualization module allowing the operator to have a cartographic view of any
available data in the system: Network modeling, real sensors, virtual sensors,
anomalies, and leaks detection in water pipes.
• A data management module: This is a mechanism for validation, persistence,
subscriptions management, and data publishing.
• A long-term storage module: The acquired or calculated data are stored in a
database for the analysis and the calculation of various indicators.
The development of this platform must consider several requirements for its
industrialization:
• Scalability to connect an increasing amount of data from different sources.
• Flexibility for integration with other applications, especially existing informa-
tion systems.
• Real-time process management: The platform must be able to execute the differ-
ent modules in real time.
To control the physicochemical quality of the drinking water, we adopted the
WSN architecture presented in Fig. 2.
Referring to the technical paper (Waspmote technical guide 2017), we adopted
the libelium smart water sensor as shown in Fig. 3.
These nodes collect physicochemical drinking water parameters such as pH,
temperature, ammonium, nitrate, potassium, turbidity, conductivity, etc. Then, the
collected data will be routed to sink nodes by Zigbee links. Each sink transmits all
4G radio link
Zigbee link
Base station
Control center
Libelium smart water sensor
Water treatment center or tank
Pumping station
Fig. 2 WSN architecture for water quality monitoring

Fig. 3 Libelium smart

water sensor
Fig. 4 Flow cytometer for

online monitoring of
microbial cell number in
water
the data to the control center using 4G radio links. We adopted a libelium sink which
includes a Zigbee coordinator for communication with the sensor nodes and a 4G
modem for communication with the control center.
To control the microbiologic water parameters, we propose to install in each
water tank and pumping station a flow cytometer bactosense (Wu 2020) as shown in
Fig. 4 to detect microbial cell numbers in water. These nodes detect the microbio-
logical parameters of the drinking water such as live dead count (LDC), total cell
count (TTC), intact cell percentage (ICP), etc.
The collected data will be transmitted to the control center.
In addition, we are interested to detect leaks in water pipes of the distribution
system. Water pipes are generally installed underground at a depth which is based
on the calculation of the depth of frost penetration (e.g., between 2.5 and 3 m)
(Water Pipeline Design Guidelines 2004). Thus, we propose to set up at each junc-
tion point a pair of sensors as shown in Fig. 5.
The sensor shown in black is designed to detect the water pressure in the pipe,
while the second in gray is designed to detect soil moisture in the vicinity of the
junction point.
Humidity sensors are designed to detect small leaks. Indeed, when it is a small
leak, it does not have a remarkable variation of water pressure in the pipe. Water
pressure sensors are designed to detect large leaks that cause a remarkable pressure
variation.
LAN 4G link
Data base server
Control center
Switch
User
Internet
Pump
Router
station
Ground surface
0.7 m 1.2 m
0.5 m
20 m Water pipe
Humidity sensor
Water pressure sensor
Fig. 5 The overall architecture of the leaks detection and localization system based on WSN
Communication between network nodes is via Bluetooth links. The data will
pass from one node to another until it reaches a base station installed in a pumping
station or in a water treatment center. Base stations use 4G radio links to transmit
data to the control center.
4 A New Model for Water Quality Analysis Based

on Machine Learning
The proposed model is based on three phases: data gathering from different sources,
data aggregation, and classification using machine learning techniques. Figure 6
shows the structure of our model.
4.1 Data Gathering
Data gathering for experimentation is an important task because system perfor-

mance is based on data accuracy. In our work, we used the database of the water
treatment station “Ghadir El Golla” of Tunis-Tunisia. The database includes real
Fig. 6 Proposed model for

water quality analyses Data gathering
Data aggregation
Classification with machine

learning
Table 1 Average with standard error values of some physicochemical and microbiological water
parameters
Safe range relative to the Tunisian Measured
Water quality parameters standard values
PH 6.5–8.5 8.3 ± 0.56
Temperature (°C) Not defined 32 ± 2.57
Free residual chlorine (mg/l) 0.2–0.6 0.42 ± 0.35
Arsenic (μg/l) 10 7 ± 2.8
Nickel (μg/l) 70 28 ± 3.98
Turbidity (NTU) 3 2 ± 0.47
Calcium (mg/l) 200 144.38 ± 13.5
Magnesium (mg/l) 100 20.45 ± 11.56
Nitrate (mg/l) 45 31.8 ± 1.25
Escherichia coli (CFU/100 ml) 0 0 ± 0.13
Intestinal enterococci (CFU/100 0 0 ± 0.17
ml)
Colony-forming unit (CFU) is a measure of viable bacterial cells
measurements of the physicochemical and microbiological quality of the water dis-

tribution. The database consists of 38 physicochemical and microbiological water
quality parameters and 103 records for the year 2018. Table 1 illustrates the average
with standard error values of some physicochemical and microbiological water
parameters.
4.2 Data Aggregation
Consider S = {si : i = 1…n} a set of source nodes placed in a hierarchical topology

around a sink. This assembly can be housed in a water storage tank, in a pumping
station, or in a treatment center. Since these resources have homogeneous character-
istics, the measurements collected have almost homogeneous distributions. All
nodes are synchronized. In each time interval Δk, each node can measure an amount
of information vik.
For p parameters of drinking water quality (pH, residual chlorine, turbidity, etc.)
to be measured in the time interval Δk, each sensor Si has a set of mea-

surements Vik uikj : j 1 p .
During a window whose size is defined in the control center, each node performs
m measurements of drinking water quality. At the end of each window, each node
will have the amount of information Vi.
u11 u1p

Vi vik : k 1 m uikj : k 1 m; j 1 p (1)
u1m ump

Each node must execute locally an aggregation algorithm which allows grouping
the similar lines together to have a matrix Wi with dimension (l, p) where l ≤ m and
transmit it to the sink node.
w11 w1p

Wi wikj : k 1l; j 1 p (2)
wl1 wlp

At the sink node, the dataset of the different sources is represented by W.
W in1 wi (3)
The sink node executes also the aggregation algorithm on the dataset W to have a
matrix W′.
i 1
W Wi , where q n. (4)
q
This aggregation method minimizes the energy consumption of the sources and
minimizes the network load.
4.3 Classification with Machine Learning
The main objective of machine learning (ML) research is to learn automatically how
to recognize complex patterns and make intelligent decisions based on data. ML has
a wide range of applications, namely, search engines, medical diagnosis, text and
handwriting recognition, image screening, load forecasting, marketing, sales diag-
nosis, etc. In 1994 ML was used for the first time in Internet flow classification in
the context of intrusion detection (Frank 1994). It is the starting point for several
Machine Learning
Supervised Learning Unsupervised Learning
Classification Regression
SVM
DT
KNN
Fig. 7 Machine learning organizational chart
works using ML techniques in Internet traffic classification. Decision trees (DT) are
one of the most commonly supervised learning algorithms used in intrusion detec-
tion systems (Amor et al. 2004) due to their simplicity, high detection accuracy, and
fast adaptation. Besides popular decision trees, support vector machines (SVMs)
are also a good candidate for intrusion detection systems (Ambwani 2003) which
can provide real-time detection capability and deal with large dimensionality of
data. Also, KNN is one of the most widely used algorithms in pattern evaluation,
text characterization, and cancer diagnosis. It is one of the simplest and most funda-
mental classification methods. In Fig. 7, a machine learning organizational chart is
presented.
4.3.1 Decision Tree Algorithms
The decision trees correspond to a set of algorithms that have been widely used for
many years as part of supervised learning (Mitchell 1997). These algorithms, in
addition to being effective in many problems, produce a decision-making process
that can be easily exploited by a human. Another advantage is that each decision
rule exploits only one attribute at a time. The decision tree can, therefore, use only
a subset of the initial attributes and be less sensitive to the addition of irrelevant
attributes. The problem is then to define a methodology allowing each stage of the
construction of the tree to choose the most relevant attribute and the separation
threshold realizing one of the dichotomies. The methodology differs according to
the quality criterion q used to identify the most discriminating attribute (entropy
measurement, impurity measurement, etc.).
Let N be a node in a decision tree that performs a separation of a set of examples
Z (the training data) into two sets of examples Zd+ and Zd− from a threshold a and
an attribute i. We note the quality variation concerning this decision expressed as
follows:
N Z ,i,a q Z P xi a | Z q Z d P xi a | Z q Z d (5)
The selection of the optimal decision rule (i*, a*) consists of choosing the one that
maximizes (5). The decision tree is usually constructed by recursively applying the
rivers (5) to the two subtrees produced by the preceding rule.
The most disadvantages of decision tree algorithms are the high probability of
overfitting, and the calculations can become complex when there are many
class labels.
4.3.2 Support Vector Machine
Support vector machines or SVMs are derived directly from Vapnik’s work in sta-
tistical learning theory (Vapnik 1999; Boser et al. 1992). It is a binary supervised
classification method that was introduced in 1992. Subsequently, it was extended to
problems of regression, density estimation, and unsupervised classification. Since
1995, research has been very prolific in the study of SVM-based methods (Vapnik
1995; Platt 1999; Joachims 2001), both in practice and theory, and many books on
SVM have been published (Cristianini and Shawe-Taylor 2000; Herbrich 2001; Abe
2005). The advantage of creating a decision function with the SVM algorithm is that
the solution produced corresponds to the optimum of a convex function. A disad-
vantage of the SVM is the significant training phase duration. In addition, SVM has
another disadvantage in which the complexity of the decision function is produced
when the learning base is large.
4.3.3 KNN
KNN uses standard Euclidean distance (Sun et al. 2009) to measure the variation
between the training and test instance. The standard Euclidean distance d(x, y) is
defined as:

d xi ,x j ar xi ar x j
2
(6)
5 The Proposed Leak Detection Algorithms in the Water

Distribution Network
5.1 The Small Leaks Control Algorithm
In our system, the transmission of moisture measurements from the sources is done
periodically after a window size of 5 min. This mode of transmission is similar to
the case in (Stoianov et al. 2007).

Hiu, k hiu, k, j : j 1..m : represents the m moisture measurements in the upper
node Ni during a window ∆k.

Hil, k hil,,kj : j 1..m : represents the m moisture measurements in the lower
node Ni during a window ∆k.
The aggregation algorithm is then applied, which consists of grouping similar
values together and eliminating the values due to measurement errors. We will have:

Hiu, k hiu, k, j : j 1.. p p m (7)

Hil, k hil,,kj : j 1..q q m (8)
For each pair of humidity sensors:

If Hil, k Hiu, k , then it is not a leak related to the water pipeline (it may be rain or
irrigation).

If Hil, k Hiu, k , then it is a leak. In this case, the node Ni (the node stuck to the
water pipe) transmits an alert message to neighboring nodes indicating the pres-
ence of a leak. The value of δ is defined in the control center. The warning mes-
sage will pass from one node to another until arriving at the base station. The
base station is responsible for transmitting alerts to the control center using 4G
radio links.
5.2 The Large Leaks Control Algorithm
In a window ∆k which size is defined by the control center, each node Ni performs m
water pressure measurements.

Pi k pij, k : j 1..m : The vector representing the water pressure measure-
ments in the node Ni during the time interval ∆k.

Pi k 1 pij, k 1 : j 1..m : The vector representing the water pressure mea-
surements in the node Ni during the time interval ∆k+1.
Each node executes the aggregation algorithm described above. We will have the
following quantities of information:

Pi k pij, k : j 1.. p p m (9)

Pi k 1 pij, k 1 : j 1..q q m (10)
If d(Pi(k), Pi(k + 1)) > ε and a remarkable increase in humidity, then node Ni triggers
the presence of a large leak. d represents the Euclidean distance between Pi(k) and
Pi(k + 1).
6 Experimentation
6.1 Water Quality Evaluation
The designed system is evaluated using MATLAB Machine Learning Toolbox based
on the standard dataset from the Tunisian Treatment Station “Ghadir El Golla.” The
dataset is divided into three parts, namely, the full dataset, the half dataset, and the 1/4
(quarter) dataset. Error rate (ERR) and accuracy (ACC) are the most common and
intuitive measures derived from the confusion matrix (Shaer et al. 2019). Error rate
(ERR) is calculated as the number of all incorrect predictions divided by the total
number of the dataset. The best error rate is 0.0, whereas the worst is 1.0.
FP FN
ERR (11)
PN
Accuracy, precision, and recall are used as evaluation metrics.
6.1.1 Accuracy Evaluation
Accuracy (ACC) is computed as the total number of correct predictions, true posi-
tive (TP) + true negative (TN), divided by the total number of a dataset (positive
(P) + negative (N)).
TP TN
ACC 1 ERR (12)
PN
Figure 8 shows in the case of the full samples, there is a slight difference between the
three techniques, but for 1/4 of the samples, the linear SVM offers better accuracy.
6.1.2 Precision Evaluation
Precision is computed as “the number of correct positive predictions (TP) divided

by the total number of positive predictions (TP + FP).” Precision is also known as a
positive predictive value.
TP
Precision (13)
TP FP
DT SVM KNN
110,00%
100,00%
90,00%
80,00%
70,00%
60,00%
50,00%
Full samples 1/2 samples 1/4 samples
Fig. 8 Accuracy of DT, SVM, and KNN (80% training and 20% testing)
DT SVM KNN
110%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Fig. 9 The precision of DT, SVM, and KNN (80% training and 20% testing)
Figure 9 shows that the linear SVM performs better compared with DT and
KNN. For the 1/4 samples, SVM gives a better precision up to 98%. These results
justify that SVM is considered in the literature as a famous classification technique
for a small database. In addition, these results prove the disadvantage of SVM which
is the complexity of the decision function produced when the learning base is large.
As a result, we have integrated a data aggregation method at the source and at the
sinks to minimize the size of the database.
6.1.3 Recall Evaluation
The recall is the ratio of correct positive predictions to the total positive examples.
TP (14)
Recall
TP FN
The recall of DT, SVM, and KNN on 80% training and 20% testing is shown in
Fig. 10.
On full data samples, the recall of SVM outperforms those DT and KNN,
whereas the recall of SVM and DT is almost similar on 1/4 samples.
6.2 Leak Detection Evaluation
The simulation tools used in our experimental work are EPANET (Rossman 2000).
EPANET is a simulator designed specifically to evaluate the metrics of the distribu-
tion water (flow, pressure, quality, etc.). We used the topology presented in Fig. 11
to assess the evolution of water pressure over time and to evaluate our leak detection
method in the water distribution network.
6.2.1 Evaluation of the Water Pressure Evolution in Adjacent Pipes
In the first stage of the experiment, we studied the evolution of the water pressure at
the adjacent nodes. Figure 12 shows the evolution of the pressure at junctions 2, 3,
4, 5, and 6 as a function of the simulation time.
DT SVM KNN
110%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Fig. 10 Recall of DT, SVM, and KNN (80% training and 20% testing)
Fig. 11 Water distribution network topology
Fig. 12 Evolution of pressures in adjacent pipes

pressure pressure
25.00 25.00
50.00 50.00
75.00 75.00
100.00 100.00
psi psi
Junction without leak Junction with leak
(a) Contour plot: Pressure at 3:00 Hrs (b) Contour plot: Pressure at 3:05 Hrs
Fig. 13 Water pressure evolution as a function of the simulation time. (a) Contour plot: Pressure
at 3:00 h. (b) Contour plot: Pressure at 3:05 h
The curves in Fig. 12 reveal a remarkable similarity of the variation of water

pressures in adjacent pipes. These variations allow us to observe that in a Δk win-
dow of size 5 min, where there are no leaks, the pressure measurements show a
slight variation. This allows us to estimate the value of ε described in the previous
section.
6.2.2 Leak Detection Evaluation
To evaluate our leak detection system, we injected random pressure values, and then
at the fifth window (25 min), we injected a low-pressure value like the case of a
large leak. Figure 13 presents the evolution of water pressure, at junction nodes, as
a function of the simulation time.
In the first measurement windows, Fig. 13a shows stationary water pressure val-
ues during 3 h of measurement. At 3:05 h as shown in Fig. 13b, a remarkable pres-
sure variation was detected at junction 2 of the water distribution network. This is
due to a large leakage.
7 Conclusion and Perspectives
This paper has been the vector of several technical advances.

• We proposed a detailed study of the system architecture. Our system is based on
a wireless sensor network in collaboration with a computer platform.
• A new model for water quality analyses was presented. This model is based on
three phases: data gathering, data aggregation, and classification with machine
learning techniques. In the first stage, a database that includes real water quality
measurements from the water treatment station of “Ghadir El Golla” in Tunis-
Tunisia was recovered. In the second stage, considering the homogeneity of the
assets in our system, we proposed a data aggregation method to minimize the
quantities of information transmitted by the source nodes to the sink. This
method increases the lifetime of the sources and minimizes the network load. In
the third phase, we started by studying the famous classification algorithms in
the literature, namely, Decision Tree, SVMs, and KNN. Then, the advantages
and disadvantages of each technique were developed in detail. An evaluation of
the accuracy, precision, and recall of these classification algorithms was pre-
sented. The experimentation results gave us good proof of the classification tech-
niques’ performance. In addition, it’s found that linear SVM seems adequate for
our application by applying the data aggregation method.
• Leak detection algorithms in the water distribution system were developed and
tested. We first reviewed a list of existing technologies designed to control leaks
in water pipes. Next, we presented a detailed architecture of our system for
detecting and locating leaks in a water distribution network based on a network
of underground wireless sensors. We then developed an algorithm for detecting
small and large leaks in distribution pipes. The experimentation results demon-
strate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.
Our work has some limits: in fact, our aggregation method regroups only similar
data packets. Other coding methods can be applied to minimize the amount of the
data packet transmitted by the sources. In addition, our leak detection algorithms are
reactive. They cannot anticipate the leaks which can act on the water pipes.
In perspective we have established several work axes:
• Integrate a new algorithm to predict the quality of pipes in the water distribution
network.
• Propose a network coding method to minimize the amount of the data packet
transmitted by the sources.
References
Abe, Shigeo. 2005. Support Vector Machines for Pattern Classification. Vol. 2. London: Springer.
Agensi, Alexander, et al. 2019. Contamination Potentials of Household Water Handling and
Storage Practices in Kirundo Subcounty, Kisoro District, Uganda. Journal of Environmental
and Public Health 2019: 1.
Akinde, Sunday Babatunde, Janet Olubukola Olaitan, and Temitope Fasunloye. 2019. Water
Shortages and Drinking Water Quality in Rural Southwest Nigeria: Issues and Sustainable
Solutions. Pan African Journal of Life Sciences 2 (May):85–93
Alioua, Nawel, et al. 2016. USR: Uniform Stress Routing Protocol for Constrained Networks. In
2016 IEEE 5th Global Conference on Consumer Electronics. IEEE.
Ambwani, Tarun. 2003. Multi Class Support Vector Machine Implementation to Intrusion
Detection. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2003,
vol. 3. IEEE.
Amor, Nahla Ben, Salem Benferhat, and Zied Elouedi. 2004. Naive Bayes vs Decision Trees
in Intrusion Detection Systems. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Symposium on Applied
Computing. ACM.
Boser, Bernhard E., Isabelle M. Guyon, and Vladimir N. Vapnik. 1992. A Training Algorithm for
Optimal Margin Classifiers. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Workshop on Computational
Learning Theory.
Cataldo, A., et al. 2014. Time Domain Reflectometry, Ground Penetrating Radar and Electrical
Resistivity Tomography: A Comparative Analysis of Alternative Approaches for Leak
Detection in Underground Pipes. NDT & E International 62: 14–28.
Chen, Qi, et al. 2018. Real-Time Learning-Based Monitoring System for Water Contamination. In
2018 4th International Conference on Universal Village (UV). IEEE.
Cristianini, Nello, and John Shawe-Taylor. 2000. An Introduction to Support Vector Machines and
Other Kernel-Based Learning Methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Du, Rong, et al. 2018. The Sensable City: A Survey on the Deployment and Management for Smart
City Monitoring. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 21 (2): 1533–1560.
Egri, Angela, et al. 2011. Intelligent Control and Monitoring of Drinking Water Distribution
System. In Annals of DAAAM & Proceedings, 629–631.
El-Zahab, Samer, et al. 2016. Collective Thinking Approach for Improving Leak Detection
Systems. Smart Water 2 (1): 1–10.
Frank, Jeremy. 1994. Machine Learning and Intrusion Detection: Current and Future Directions.
In Proceedings of the 17th National Computer Security Conference.
Friedman, M., L. Radder, S. Harrison, D. Howie, M. Britton, G. Boyd, H. Wang, R. Gullick,
M. LeChevallier, D. Wood, and J. Funk. 2005. Verification and Control of Pressure Transients
and Intrusion in Distribution Systems [Project #2686]. ISBN: 1843398966 AwwaRF
Report Series.
Herbrich, Ralf. 2001. Learning Kernel Classifiers: Theory and Algorithms. MIT Press.
Hou, Liqun, et al. 2018. Thermal Energy Harvesting WSNs Node for Temperature Monitoring in
IIoT. IEEE Access 6: 35243–35249.
Hunaidi, Osama, and Alex Wang. 2006. A New System for Locating Leaks in Urban Water
Distribution Pipes. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 17: 450.
Joachims, Thorsten. 2001. Estimating the Generalization Performance of a SVM Efficiently. No.
2001, 20. Technical Report.
Khulief, Y.A., et al. 2011. Acoustic Detection of Leaks in Water Pipelines Using Measurements
Inside Pipe. Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice 3 (2): 47–54.
Koditala, Nikhil Kumar, and Purnendu Shekar Pandey. 2018. Water Quality Monitoring System
Using IoT and Machine Learning. In 2018 International Conference on Research in Intelligent
and Computing in Engineering (RICE). IEEE.
Li, Peng, et al. 2014. Wireless Sensing and Vibration Control with Increased Redundancy and
Robustness Design. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 44 (11): 2076–2087.
Mitchell, Tom. 1997. Machine Learning, 870–877.
Mounce, Stephen R., Richard B. Mounce, and Joby B. Boxall. 2011. Novelty Detection for Time
Series Data Analysis in Water Distribution Systems Using Support Vector Machines. Journal
of Hydroinformatics 13 (4): 672–686.
Pappu, Soundarya, et al. 2017. Intelligent IoT Based Water Quality Monitoring System.
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research 12 (16): 5447–5454.
Platt, John. 1999. Fast Training of Support Vector Machines Using Sequential Minimal
Optimization. In Advances in Kernel Methods-Support Vector Learning, 185–208. Cambridge:
AJ/MIT Press.
Plummer, Jeanine D., and Sharon C. Long. 2007. Monitoring Source Water for Microbial
Contamination: Evaluation of Water Quality Measures. Water Research 41 (16): 3716–3728.
Romano, Michele, Zoran Kapelan, and Dragan A. Savić. 2012. Automated Detection of Pipe
Bursts and Other Events in Water Distribution Systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning
and Management 140 (4): 457–467.
Romano, Michele, Kevin Woodward, and Zoran Kapelan. 2017. Statistical Process Control Based
System for Approximate Location of Pipe Bursts and Leaks in Water Distribution Systems.
Procedia Engineering 186: 236–243.
Rossman, L.A., 2000, EPANET 2 Users Manual, EPA/600/R-00/057, National RiskManagement
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Sadeghioon, Ali, et al. 2014. SmartPipes: Smart Wireless Sensor Networks for Leak Detection in
Water Pipelines. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks 3 (1): 64–78.
Sartory, David P., and John Watkins. 1998. Conventional Culture for Water Quality Assessment: Is
There a Future? Journal of Applied Microbiology 85 (S1): 225S–233S.
Shaer, Lama, Rouwaida Kanj, and Rajiv Joshi. 2019. Data Imbalance Handling Approaches
for Accurate Statistical Modeling and Yield Analysis of Memory Designs. In 2019 IEEE
International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS). IEEE.
Shafi, Uferah, et al. 2018. Surface Water Pollution Detection Using Internet of Things. In 2018
15th International Conference on Smart Cities: Improving Quality of Life Using ICT & IoT
(HONET-ICT). IEEE.
Stoianov, Ivan, et al. 2007. Pipeneta Wireless Sensor Network for Pipeline Monitoring. In
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks.
Sun, Bo, Junping Du, and Tian Gao. 2009. Study on the Improvement of K-Nearest-Neighbor
Algorithm. In 2009 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Computational
Intelligence, vol. 4. IEEE.
Usachev, V.A., et al. 2019. Neural Network Using to Analyze the Results of Environmental
Monitoring of Water. In 2019 Systems of Signals Generating and Processing in the Field of on
Board Communications. IEEE.
Vapnik, Vladimir N. 1995. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory, New York, NY, USA:
Springer-Verlag: 167–175
Vapnik, Vladimir. 1999. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Springer Science &
Business Media.
Waspmote Technical Guide. Document Version: v7.2- 07/2017.
Water Pipeline Design Guidelines. April 2004, EPB 276.
Wu, Hao. 2020. Assessment of Using Low-frequency Ultrasound Device for Domestic Drinking
Water Disinfection. CIE5050-09 Additional Graduation Thesis.
Ye, Guoliang, and Richard Andrew Fenner. 2011. Kalman Filtering of Hydraulic Measurements
for Burst Detection in Water Distribution Systems. Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering
and Practice: 2(1): 14–22.
Yue, Ruan, and Tang Ying. 2011. A Water Quality Monitoring System Based on Wireless Sensor
Network & Solar Power Supply. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Cyber Technology
in Automation, Control, and Intelligent Systems. IEEE.
Algorithmic Art and Cultural
Sustainability in the Museum Sector
Giulia Taurino
Abstract While most Western museums contain art objects, relics and memora-
bilia from a variety of cultures, there is still a considerable bias in the way artifacts
are defined as culturally significant, selected for exhibition, digitized, and comple-
mented with metadata. In turn, biased datasets and non-representative samples stand
at the core of an ever-growing techno-cultural issue that affects algorithmic culture,
raising concerns for discriminatory practices in the application of artificial intelli-
gence. This chapter suggests a viable path towards cultural sustainability by asking
how algorithmic art can help us frame sustainable futures. It argues that promoting
diversity in algorithmic design through creative practices might have a positive
impact on fostering inclusive innovations in ethical AI and cultural heritage preser-
vation. To show how AI can be positively integrated in museum institutions in coex-
istence with traditional curatorial practices, the first part of the paper tackles existing
studies on cultural sustainability in the museum sector. More specifically, it consid-
ers a series of studies exploring theoretical and empirical approaches to sustainable
development in museums. Through a literature review, I demonstrate how a sustain-
able cultural development was proved to be correlated to the overall sustainability
framework – social, environmental, and economic. The second part complements
the evidence presented by previous research with a close reading observation of new
methodologies brought by the introduction of AI-based practices in museum set-
tings. By focusing on experimental museology projects conducted in collaboration
with art institutions, the chapter finally discusses the role of algorithmic art in chal-
lenging biased standards in cultural and tech industries and supporting
sustainability.
Keywords SDGs · Ethical AI · Digital archives · Museums · Experimental

museology · Algorithmic art
G. Taurino (*)
Institute for Experiential AI, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA
328 G. Taurino
1 Introduction: Cultural Datasets, Cultural Algorithms
While most Western museums contain art objects, relics and memorabilia from a
variety of cultures, there is still a considerable bias in the way artifacts are defined
as culturally significant, selected for exhibition, digitized, and complemented with
metadata. In turn, biased datasets and non-representative samples stand at the very
core of an ever-growing techno-cultural issue that is spreading in algorithmic cul-
ture, with rising concerns for discriminatory practices in the application of artificial
intelligence (AI). Both in the cultural sector and in the tech industry, a large body of
scholarships grounded in feminist epistemology and critical race theory stressed on
the need to halt the perpetuation of uneven power dynamics and advocate in favor
of a more sustainable development (O’Neil 2016; Noble 2018; Buolamwini and
Gebru 2018; Benjamin 2019; Costanza-Chock 2020; D’Ignazio and Klein 2020;
Crawford 2021). Despite Eun Seo Jo and Timnit Gebru’s (2020) invitation to follow
the lessons of archival studies in finding inclusive and transparent options for col-
lecting sociocultural data in machine learning, most archives in libraries and muse-
ums remain contested sites where power manifests itself in the form of
historical biases inherited from discriminatory cultural practices, social inequali-
ties and institutional hierarchies.
To tackle the ethical commitments that come with record-keeping, researchers,
media scholars and curators have suggested counter-archival approaches that go
beyond the definition of mission statements and participatory practices in archival
settings, to promote a creative movement that “counteracts” partial archival histo-
ries (Kashmere 2010). As Brett Kashmere outlines, “in this formulation, the
‘counter-archive’ represents an incomplete and unstable repository, an entity to be
contested and expanded through clandestine acts, a space of impermanence and
play. Taken as an action, the term entails mischief and imagination, challenging the
record of official history. Employed as an artistic strategy it pushes our archival
impulse into new territories, encouraging critique and material alteration/fabrica-
tion, and emboldening anarchivism” (ibidem, online). If archives can offer relevant
examples of compliance frameworks for gathering available sociocultural informa-
tion, counter-archives provide us with “a form of recollection of that which has been
silenced and buried” (Merewether 2006). Accounting for both archival and counter-
archival practices, this chapter argues that the implementation of research-creation,
art-based, counter-methodologies in museums can lead to positive outcomes for
cultural, social, and technological sustainability.
An ethical, collaborative, regulated approach to data collection, management,
and use is indeed at the basis of fair, transparent, responsible AI (Leavy et al.
2021). However, the lack of consistent understanding of the operational and indus-
trial life cycle of most commonly deployed algorithms in machine learning (ML)
poses obstacles to the approval of targeted laws and guidelines. As concepts like
explainability and accountability gain more and more relevance in the public debate
around AI, it is still unclear how to take practical measures to overcome the barriers
Algorithmic Art and Cultural Sustainability in the Museum Sector 329
created by black-box algorithms and opaque AI models. Among other solutions,

algorithmic art has been implemented in several projects hosted by cultural organi-
zations as an educational tool that renders computational operations more accessi-
ble to non-technical audiences and prompts citizens to regaining agency over
AI. Moreover, algorithmic art projects have served as gateways for further interdis-
ciplinary exchange between the humanities and computer sciences on how to make
algorithms cultural, rather than making culture algorithmic. The term “cultural
algorithms” (Reynolds 1994, 2020) evokes a series of studies in evolutionary pro-
gramming that were originally inspired by the theory of human cultural evolution
(Maheri et al. 2021). In Robert G. Reynolds’ definition, “cultural algorithms are
computational models of complex cultural systems” (Reynolds et al. 2015: 1876).
Here, the term is re-introduced in the context of social sciences and humanities to
broadly address conceptual and methodological frameworks equipped with the fun-
damentals of both cultural and computational studies. Drawing upon the notion
of algorithms as culture (Seaver 2017) and cultural artifacts, this paper investigates
the ways algorithmic art can help us frame sustainable cultural futures in parallel
with socio-technical change. By providing an overview of computational initiatives
in museum archives, the research presented here looks at creative coding as a way
to improve diversity of practices and objectives in algorithmic design, while also
fostering a more inclusive approach to the preservation of cultural heritages, beliefs,
and traditions in museums.
In order to show how artificial intelligence can be positively integrated in heri-
tage institutions in a state of coexistence with traditional curatorial practices, the
first part of the chapter will summarize existing articles on the impacts of cultural
sustainability in European countries. More specifically, I will consider a series of
studies that explore theoretical and empirical approaches to sustainable develop-
ment in museum settings. Through a literature review, I will observe how a sustain-
able development in the management of historical records is correlated to the overall
sustainability framework – being it social, environmental, or economic sustainabil-
ity. In the second part, I will complement the evidence from previous research with
a close-reading observation of the new methodologies brought by the introduction
of machine learning applications in the GLAM sector. After focusing on a small
corpus of projects in experimental museology conducted in collaboration with art
institutions, academic labs and industrial partners starting from digitized collections
datasets, I will evaluate the role of algorithmic art in challenging normative canons
and standards in art histories. In addition to addressing the topic of cultural sustain-
ability in museums, these examples will demonstrate how creative coding in algo-
rithmic design can be used to expose the biases of the tech industry and compensate
for the shortcomings of most widespread AI-based systems. Building upon a series
of UN reports, guides, and policy briefs, this paper ultimately re-centers the debate
about AI and sustainable development around cultural variability and creativity as
the core principles for supporting technological advancements, institutional decen-
tralization, and societal resilience.
330 G. Taurino
2 Sustainable Development and AI-Based Technologies
Closely tied to geopolitical circumstances, the theme of socio-economic develop-

ment has been at the center of United Nations’ concerns since the beginning of its
operations, going through several adjustments, repositionings, transformations in
accordance with contextual implications for minorities and vulnerable groups. A
timeline published by the Dag Hammarskjöld Library (Kurtas n.d.) shows how the
initial actions to promote development on a global scale have been centered around
notions of technical assistance, social progress, accelerated economic growth,
industrial and infrastructural advancement. By the time the UN Development
Programme reached the second decade (1971–1981), the conversation had moved
from a focus on primarily economic and material solutions towards a more human-
centric scale that accounts for the “physical, moral, intellectual, cultural growth of
the human person” (UNGA 1958). Since then, the discussion about human rights
and local cultural heritage, in association with income-based development, evolved
into a broader attempt to define the heterogeneous aspects that influence the
improvement of both social and individual well-being, in terms of accessibility to
opportunities and choices. In the years between 1990 and 1999, technology emerged
as an additional, problematic element in the reflection on the human condition, not
only in what concerns limited access to tertiary education, but also in terms of digi-
tal divide and gender-based social disparity. As announced in the first Human
Development Report on the UN Development Programme, “while North-South
gaps have narrowed in basic human survival, they continue to widen in advanced
knowledge and high technology” (UNDP 1990: 3).
Despite these first efforts to understand the connection between development and
technologies, which led to the formation of the UN Commission on Science and
Technology for Development in 1992, the discourse on how these two fields would
intersect took a few more years to find a grounding for long-term, sustainable plans.
At the turning of the twenty-first century, the UN General Assembly approved the
Millennium Development Goals, targeting a series of values and scopes to direct
humanitarian actions and policies. However, in the UN Millennium Declaration,
technological development was covered only as a marginal topic, and mainly in
relation to the availability of information and communication resources, leaving
aside the multidimensional ways in which technological advancements and states of
inequality are correlated (UNGA 2000). While the notion and practice of global
development have evolved over the years, it is only more recently that the concept
of sustainable development was officially introduced, along with a closer attention
to the role that technology plays both at a local and international level on economic,
political, social, and cultural lives across all countries. With the aim of addressing
sustainability in various sectors, in the resolution adopted by the General Assembly
in 2015, a new “plan of action for people, planet and prosperity” was launched as
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UNGA 2015). Not only this docu-
ment outlines a new path for sustainability in association with cultural development
(UNESCO 2019), but it also gives space to a conversation about the ethical aspects
of designing and implementing new technologies for an equitable digital educa-

tion aimed at respecting natural resources, women empowerment and the needs
of vulnerable communities at large.
The predominant narrative around technology adoption contributed to frame
computational and internet-based tools within a capitalistic vision of human prog-
ress, mechanical automation and optimization. In opposition with this view and in
line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the field of media and
technology studies started questioning the notion that advancements operate as a
consequence of powerful, fast, efficient machineries. Contemporary academic dis-
cussions on the ethical and sociocultural implications of AI point at an alternative
perspective on technological development based on slow, sustainable, and inclusive
practices for countering biases in data collection and machine learning models. In a
moment when the UN stresses on 17 goals for sustainability that align with univer-
sal and integrated approaches (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs
n.d.) to collective and multigenerational action, academic, nonprofit, and industry-
level communities working in AI Ethics are exploring different possibilities to
include SDGs in their research (Di Vaio et al. 2020; Astobiza et al. 2021; Gill and
Germann 2021). Scholarly publications that try to assess the positive or negative
impacts of artificial intelligence on the environment and society return a complex
scenario, where AI may enable the accomplishment of some SDGs' targets, while
inhibiting others (Khamis et al. 2019), with major concerns for transparency, safety,
ethical standards (Vinuesa et al. 2020), and risks of unsustainability of socio-
technical systems (Sætra 2021).
As outlined in the UN Resource Guide on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Strategies,
“the logic of the social media business models and AI ranking systems has had a
harmful impact on the news media, further weakening press freedom and the rights
to freedom of expression and access to information. Similar consequences are seen
in the field of culture, where advertainments are individually tailored to the point
where they may impede opening the creative horizon” (Liu et al. 2021). To regu-
late the outcomes of algorithmic recommendation and contrast industry-based ten-
dencies to capitalize choice via automated prediction (Cohn 2019), the UN addressed
a list of technical standards for AI policy measures and international strategies. Yet,
although effective in top-down governance, these UN development programs often
lack of practical directions to solicit change in algorithmic culture starting from a
bottom-up approach to AI design and deployment. In search for further guidance on
the path towards explainable, trustworthy, accountable machine learning systems,
Floridi et al. (2020) highlight seven essential factors that can aid the implementation
of artificial intelligence for social good (AI4SG) in theory and practice. In order to
achieve useful results and implement successful policies, these factors should be
“interpreted and evaluated contextually when one is designing, developing, and
deploying a specific AI4SG project” (ivi: 1791). Considering the case of AI for cul-
tural sustainability, in the following paragraphs, I will map out a few approaches to
the design of ML models in the field of the arts and humanities, a step that will allow
us to gain a better insight into algorithmic projects developed in specific museum
contexts.
332 G. Taurino
Inclusive design workflows, where AI both complies and contributes to social

good, have been proposed under several umbrella terms – from the older notion of
human-centered design (Cooley 1987) to value-sensitive (Friedman et al. 2008) and
speculative design (Dunne and Raby 2013). These critical approaches to the design
of technologies offer a fertile ground to imagine a new set of machine learning
applications, one that acknowledges the weaknesses within existing algorithmic
systems while also enhancing ethical practices and opening a route for social change.
Value-sensitive and speculative design in particular align with some of the underly-
ing principles of sustainable development - namely, facilitation of intercultural dia-
logue, respect for race, ethnic and cultural diversity, promotion of social justice,
human rights and gender equality (UNGA 2015). If, on the one hand, value-sensitive
design refers to “a theoretically grounded approach to the design of technology that
accounts for human values in a principled and comprehensive manner throughout
the design process” (Friedman et al. 2008: 2), on the other hand, “critical designs
are testimonials to what could be, but at the same time, they offer alternatives that
highlight weaknesses within existing normality” (Dunne and Raby 2013: 35). In
this sense, speculative methodologies can be used to actively “debate potential ethi-
cal, cultural, social, political implications” (ivi: 47).
By merging these two conceptual frameworks and considering best practices in
existing AI tools, methods, and research (Morley et al. 2020), I will consider experi-
mental algorithmic art applications in the research-to-design and design-to-creation
of AI technologies. In doing so, I will observe how they act in synergy with the UN
sustainable development agenda. Among the case studies considered, the following
sections will present projects that deal with these questions: How can we move from
AI models based on unilateral technological aid and virtual assistance to models
based on techno-cultural, bilateral cooperation between humans and algorithms?
How can we renegotiate the meaning of AI ethics and sustainable development in
relation to the arts and cultural heritage? And, finally, how can we provide a defini-
tion for sustainable AI design practices for humanistic research and the creative
sector? To answer these questions, particular attention will be given to the ways in
which inventive algorithmic interventions play out in the museum space, at the
intersection between cultural heritage preservation, techno-humanist (Frodeman
2017) AI explorations, and sustainable development.
3 Cultural Sustainability and the Museum Space
“No development is sustainable without considering culture” (UNESCO 2018: 3).

Culture shapes our identity, preserves our collective memory, orientates our knowl-
edge and behaviors. Echoing this vision, the UN most recent agenda openly recog-
nizes the importance of diversity in cultural heritage and its crucial role in enabling
sustainable development across different civilizations. So how do the UN efforts to
“make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” and
“to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage” (UNESCO
2016: 18, 130) find a pragmatic outcome in more specific cultural contexts? And
how can we move from a theoretical framework (Swanson and DeVereaux 2017) in
policy-making to a more practical framework able to influence everyday human
practices and social lives? Before considering case studies in computational arts and
experimental museology, it is necessary to give a more detailed overview of what
cultural sustainability means in relation to the museum sector. According to the
World Commission on Culture and Development, cultural sustainability refers to
the inter- and intra-generational access to cultural resources and heritage (WCCD
1995), that is to say “the entire corpus of material signs – either artistic or sym-
bolic – handed on by the past to each culture and, therefore, to the whole of human-
kind” (UNESCO 1989: 57). In this sense, with their work of collecting, preserving,
and displaying historical and contemporary objects, museums represent some of the
main gatekeepers of cultural sustainability, always concerned with the passing on of
cultural heritage.
A few studies focusing on the European landscape have tried to find measures to
identify and evaluate sources of cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986) in national areas as
connected to institutional and historical landmarks. For instance, a study on the
Swedish geo-cultural landscape uses available data as variables to verify indicators
for cultural value and determine geographical patterns at a national level (Axelsson
et al. 2013). This research argues for a collaborative learning process and adaptive
governance that can assist stakeholders and decision-makers in acquiring a share-
dompetence before targeting policies. Another study maps out the Cypriot museum
network in order to isolate strengths and weaknesses in the achievement of cultural
sustainability and propose a theoretical model for the definition of policies
(Stylianou-Lambert et al. 2014). Stylianou-Lambert et al. notably insist on the fact
that the idea of cultural heritage is artificially constructed to create a sense of place
and identity at a national, local, and individual level (ivi: 2). “Museums are […] part
of a cultural system which selectively renders certain aspects of a culture visible
while obscuring others. Like any cultural system or economy, different stakeholders
operate within various complex power structures. These stakeholders indicate what
is deemed important to be preserved for future generations as the material and
immaterial proof of a country’s heritage” (ibidem).
In both papers, dating before the publication of the UN SDGs, the authors opt for
research-based solutions to detect parameters that can be used as references for
culturally sustainable policy-making. The urgency to define a common language
and shared mode of communication with stakeholders (being them private donors
and funders, public entities like the state, or local organizations) emerges as the
basis of any viable policy-planning. This process of finding a dialogue between
museums, sustainable practices, and governmental interests inevitably reveals over-
lapping macro- and micro-economic dynamics, as well as political interests, with a
complex range of repercussions that vary depending on each context. Moreover, the
cited studies emphasize that national identity and the human concern with creating
a sense of place play a fundamental role in addressing cultural sustainability in the
museum space. In conclusion, the combination of these economic, political, socio-
cultural factors profoundly affects our ability to decide for the presence or absence
334 G. Taurino
of archival records in galleries and repositories. With this in mind, Stylianou-

Lambert et al. advocate for a sustainable development strategy built upon four pil-
lars: environment, society, economy, and culture.
While culture has been recognized as one of the main pillars of sustainability
even outside of UN frameworks (Hawkes 2001), in turn a sustainable development
has proved to be essential not only for cultural management (Mickov and Doyle
n.d.), but also for addressing endogenous institutional biases of many archives and
exposing systems of power rooted in colonialist histories and ideologies. Practical
applications of cultural sustainability in relation to museums and libraries have
pointed at the necessity of introducing sustainable development strategies as funda-
mental for the survival of cultural institutions (Loach et al. 2017). In these perspec-
tives, social, environmental, and economic sustainability are thought to be
prerequisites for a well-functioning cultural organization. Considering sustainable
development as an imperative condition for cultural development stimulates heri-
tage institutions to rethink their systemic hierarchies, to renovate their traditions
with attention for innovation and intercultural dialogue, and to create hybrid envi-
ronments where knowledge dissemination, education, and participatory initiatives
can sustain community building, collaborative learning, and reparatory actions.
Furthermore, consistent results across several research groups (Pencarelli et al.
2016; Pop et al. 2019) tie cultural sustainability to social sustainability. In these
studies, a socially responsible behavior in museums’ management is found to have
positive trade-offs on fundraising, with consequent impact on institutional initia-
tives that strengthen UN SDGs – namely, enhancement of heritage preservation,
community-based educational programs, and research-creation activities. Showing
evidence of close correlation between social practices in GLAMs and their capacity
to maintain sustainability helps us understand concepts like inter-generational
equity or inter-temporal distributive justice (Throsby 2002; Taylor 2013) as key to
the discussion on policies and access to culture. “We need cultural policies” (Mickov
and Doyle n.d.), and even more, we need culturally and socially sustainable inter-
ventions. Policy-making revolving around data collection and analysis, and socio-
cultural datasets still being sites of controversies and practices of appropriation, the
cultural context is sometimes still underplayed in favor of factors that can be more
easily measured and quantified. Traditional methodological approaches are now
being questioned among a variety of sectors that are highlighting the centrality of
cultural awareness for the development of sustainable and equitable regulations
(Napier et al. 2017).
Through a series of articles and policy briefs, the UNESCO is soliciting cutting-
edge emergency responses for societal recovery, renewal, transformation, and short-
term to mid-to-long-term plans in response to the disruptions of the ongoing
pandemic. Redeeming creativity as vital for structural change as much as for the
survival of cultural industries, UN publications are calling for social action to
reverse the worsening inequality brought by the post-pandemic crisis. In Culture in
Crisis: Policy Guide for a Resilient Creative Sector (UNESCO 2020), the UN com-
mits to the protection of human creativity, openly addressing it as a form of resil-
ience. While acknowledging the challenges and risks of digital technologies, this
policy guide recognizes that, although problematic, they have been essential in
maintaining social connections and cultural consumption, providing interesting
opportunities to rebuild, share, and advance social interaction outside of physical
spaces. “Beyond the cultural sector itself, culture has the power to advance other
human development objectives such as education, health and well-being, while also
stimulating the much-needed skills and values of adaptation, solidarity and empa-
thy, all of which will be vital to build back better societies” (UNESCO 2021).
When it comes to defining sustainability in close relation to culture (Zheng et al.
2021), notions like collective memory, historical trauma, technological disparity
are needed in order to understand the complexity of sustainable development initia-
tives. Often missing at the level of governance, acts of care, rupture and repair turn
out to be necessary for human, cultural, technological survival alike. Opening muse-
ums up to a range of creative and critical possibilities might help us grasp the variety
of cultural dynamics articulated within museums, from those regulating human
geographies and senses of belonging to those underlying human identities and
archival acts of acquisition, selection, preservation, up until the historical move-
ments involved in the definition of myths, symbols, and processes of erasure.
Thinking about the museum as a space for survival, the following paragraph pres-
ents a counterapproach that is radically different from methodologies based on eco-
nomic analysis to calculate cultural impacts. Starting from digital databases that
document physical archives, I will discuss case studies that deploy algorithmic art
and other exploratory approaches to explore alternative ways to “measure” cultural
invisibility, marginal identities, and intercultural and inter-generational connec-
tions. I will observe the ways in which this methodology responds to sustainable
development on multiple levels, by both contributing to reaching museums’ core
sustainability missions and advocating for ethical AI practices.
4 An Algorithmic Art Framework

for Techno-cultural Sustainability
In this study, I select examples of best practices in research-creation (Chapman and

Sawchuk 2012) designed to explore digitized collections and metadata repositories,
with consideration for contested heritage and contentious art histories in Western
museums across Europe, the UK and the US. While some of these practices were
born as part of a digital humanities movement that uses creative coding and compu-
tational methods to undertake questions in humanities and social sciences (Maeda
2004), they are also insightful interdisciplinary accounts of how a constructive dia-
logue can be built in connection between several fields: ethics and sustainabil-
ity studies, cultural and media studies, sociology, computer sciences, design, and
experimental museology. Far from being merely provocative statements, these coop-
erative AI (Dafoe et al. 2021) practices feed into a culture of sustainability; they are
interactive, exploratory public art projects conceived to find collective solutions to
336 G. Taurino
simultaneously respond to the shortcomings of AI development in for-profit indus-

tries and the institutional limitations of the GLAM sector. The multifaceted relation
between research and creation, including, among others, creation-as-research, has
been theorized “as a form of cultural analysis” that “partakes of the spectacle of the
work of art and its demonstration of alternative frameworks for understanding, com-
municating, and disseminating knowledge. This is also what defines research-
creation as an epistemological intervention on the level of academic methodology.
But each and every research-creation project also carries the possibility of acting as
an intervention in its own right in terms of the specific fields of inquiry, practice,
history, et cetera in which it is embedded” (Chapman and Sawchuk 2012: 23).
The case studies presented here are therefore to be observed as epistemological
interventions that aim at initiating a process of diversification in existing AI, curato-
rial, exhibition practices. Bearing in mind both forms of brokenness and reconnec-
tion as ways to repair faults and gaps in equity and justice, I selected a corpus of
research projects – academic or archive-based – that combine computational tech-
niques with archival datasets. The goal is to explore how inter-generational equity
and inter-temporal distributive justice can be applied to sociocultural scenarios, and
more specifically to the museum ecosystem through algorithmic art applications.
Since all projects in the corpus were produced in a timeframe between 2015 to
2022, and some of them are still ongoing, I will not concentrate on the empirical
assessment of their impact, but rather on a study of their modus operandi, topics
addressed, and their alignment with UN SDGs. In order to do so, I classified these
projects in two groups: one focusing on the transformative reuse of existing collec-
tions and datasets through value-sensitive design and one focusing on the imagina-
tive use of non-existing collections and absent datasets (Klein 2013) through
speculative design. In the former, which counts a longer tradition of computational
interventions,1 I include the following: Recognition (2016), Forms of Attraction
(2018), MosAIc (2020), This Recommendation System is Broken (2020–), and
Museums Marginalia (2021–2022). In the latter, I present two groundbreaking deep
learning-based generative projects: Igùn (2020–) and Deep Fakes: Art and Its
Double (2021–2022).
Awarded the IK Prize 2016 for digital innovation, Recognition is a project that
uses machine learning to explore connections between art history and contemporary
photojournalism images. It showcased over the course of 3 months (from September
to November 2016) at the Tate gallery in London (U.K.), creating a virtual exhibi-
tion of 7271 pairings between art objects from the museum’s collection and news
photos by Reuters. This project uses image recognition to detect similar objects,
faces, compositions, and contexts across visual records. Researchers described this
initiative as an attempt to find creativity and meaning in errors (Miguel Carvalhais),
coexistence of invisibility and colors (Natalie D Kane), connections between
destruction and transformation (Anne Racine), and superpositions of design and
1
For a more comprehensive listing of AI initiatives in museums, please refer to the following
resource: https://www.artsmetrics.com/en/list-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-initiatives-in-museums/
violence (Caroline Sinders).2 Matching computer vision with the human eye of art-
ists and photo-reporters, Recognition provides a case study for AI implementa-
tions in museums that bridge separate fields (i.e. arts and journalism) and induce
unexpected cross-historical, cross-cultural, and cross-geographical conversations.
Other projects leverage computational techniques to investigate intra- or interin-
stitutional connections between artworks in archives. One example is the case of
Emily Chu’s visualization of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Costume Institute’s
database, Forms of Attraction (2018). Winner of the Kantar Information is Beautiful
Awards 2018, this work uses machine learning and statistical models to retrace the
history of clothing by applying K-means clustering algorithms on images to iden-
tify similar shapes. The result is a visual project that shows how the evolution of
fashion alternates between craftmanship and artistic expression. Relying on unsu-
pervised learning, this visualization entails a reflection on dynamics of constructed
inequality and classism in the arts, but it also points at possible failure of algorithms
and training sets used in AI. On the one hand, the project proves the efficacy of
machine learning models on most common shapes of clothing, connecting imges
from a variety of timeframes and geographical areas.Such is the case of the dancing
bell shape, which emerges as a recurrent pattern across historical periods and cul-
tures. These recurring patterns can help us reconstruct and compare women’s role
across societies and civilizations, thus filling the void of untold and unknown
women histories. However, this same approach to data visualization based on algo-
rithmic clustering can be used to expose potential issues with existing unsupervised
learning models - e.g. missing more unusual shapes, mis-grouping outliers and
returning errors.
Not only these projects operate effectively in intra-institutional settings to rede-
fine archival narratives and histories in museums like the Tate and Met, but they can
also be instrumental in favoring inter-institutional collaboration and dialogue. It is
the case of the more recent art project MosAIc (2020) developed at MIT CSAIL by
Mark Hamilton, in partnership with Microsoft. The research group started from
digitized collections at the New York’s Met and the Amsterdam’s Rijksmuseum.
MosAIc leverages on a supervised model (tree-based k-nearest neighbors algorithm
or KNN) to create an application based on conditional image retrieval that “com-
bines visual similarity search with user supplied filters or ‘conditions’” (Hamilton
et al. 2021: 1). In a creative way, this work proposes a novel methodology for
improving machine learning to better identify analogies between artworks from dif-
ferent collections, cultures, and media. In addition to suggesting inter-generational,
inter-cultural, and inter-media connections, this prototype can be used to solve some
of the limitations of state-of-the-art machine learning algorithms and advance more
diverse AI applications in synergy between multiple archives. Much like MosAIc,
other algorithmic art initiatives were designed to address the challenges in the way
cultural archives in museums are traditionally organized, preserved, and exhibited,
while also contributing to the creation of ethical algorithms. For instance, a project
2
http://recognition.tate.org.uk/#intro
338 G. Taurino
launched in 2020 at MetaLAB (at) Harvard with the title of This Recommendation
System is Broken,3 in collaboration with the Harvard Art Museums for the exhibition
series Curatorial A(i)gents, was designed to problematize automated decision-
making in application to the curation of cultural content. Built using a creative cod-
ing approach, the work was later adapted to other institutional environments to
explore more closely how machine learning and algorithmic curatorial practices can
help redefine art histories across institutions in the same urban region (Taurino
2021). Titled Museum Marginalia (2021–2022), the second project in this broken-
algorithm series was developed as part of a collaboration between Fondazione ISI
(tech partner), Associazione Arteco (cultural partner), and local Italian museums in
the Torino area (museum partner). Open datasets made available by Fondazione
Torino Musei (i.e., Galleria Civica d’Arte Moderna e Contemporanea, Museo
d’Arte Orientale, Palazzo Madama) were used to create a content filtering system
that selects randomly assorted groups of objects based on materials and techniques
commonly associated with low arts, crafts and handwork. This algorithm shows
random links between artistic traditions and crafting techniques, with a focus on
objects for everyday use. In a second iteration, the datasets were used to train a
machine learning model able to recognize connections between records sharing
visual features and create a network of items paired by similarity.
This project connects heterogeneous archives coming with a wide variety of digi-
tized records, from modern and contemporary art to ancient Italian art and Eastern
art, with attention for the inter-cultural and inter-generational histories hidden
behind marginal objects in museums’ collections. Furthermore, it offers a solution
for designing algorithms in a way that is ethical (e.g., gives visibility to under-
researched artworks), educational (e.g., explores a history of women crafts), and
collaborative (e.g., promotes interinstitutional communication in synergy between
algorithmic and human curators). These are examples of how the transformative
reuse of existing datasets can tackle some of the goals of UN Sustainable
Development Agenda while also proposing a change at the community level, by
enhancing better understanding of archives both internally and externally, by pre-
senting a diversified set of adaptive algorithms, and by favoring social knowledge,
dialogue, and tolerance. Overall, each project contributes in framing a design and
use of AI that favor cultural exchange. This stands in contrast with most common
applications found in the tech industry, which often deploys algorithmic filtering
systems that reinforce the creation of silos by selecting “what is always already
preferred” (Taurino 2020).
Other projects bring the exploratory approach to the fore by using AI to imagine
missing data and potential histories (Azoulay 2019). Among the most interest-
ing experiments in this domain, Minne Atairu’s Igùn uses generative adversarial
networks (GANs) to inventively retell a never-existed history of Benin’s art produc-
tion that was silenced by a 17-year British interregnum. As a training set for
the machine learning algorithm, the artist used a dataset of stolen Benin Bronzes
3
https://thedigitalreview.com/issue01/taurino-machine/work/brokensystem/exhibit.html
curated by the Western Art Museums.4 Ever since its launch, the Atairu’s project
evolved into a series of collaborations with museums and galleries that aim at rais-
ing awareness on the long-term traumatic impacts of colonialist interventions on
local identities and cultural heritage. Imaginative projects revolving around
the transformational reuse of datasets via generative AI models expose the need for
decolonial approaches in the management of archival records as well as in algorith-
mic practices. In these works, techno-cultural diversity assumes a pivotal role in
taking concrete measures in applying AI for social good and justice. Within a simi-
lar exploratory intent, the EPFL Pavilion’s exhibition, Deep Fakes: Art and Its
Double (2021-2022), born from the collaboration between several academic and
tech partners, uses advanced computational techniques to generate digital replicas
of seminal artifacts from pan-Asian art and architecture. With this speculative
design approach, it raises questions around crucial notions in museology and arts,
such as the value of materiality, authority, and authenticity of objects. At the same
time, it explores the effects of AI technologies on cultural heritage, thus mobilizing
several topics in a public conversation about the deep fakes in acts
of misinformation.
Even outside of the museum space, algorithmic art has emerged as a form of
activism against discriminatory machine learning models. In collaborative annota-
tion projects like Algorithmic Art to Counter Gender Bias 2022, data-based art prac-
tices have been deployed to fill the gender gap and create more inclusive training
sets for machine learning. This web-based project invites users to take part into a
participatory labeling process that aims at redefining conventional and culturally
constructed concepts, like femininity or womanhood. The resulting dataset of anno-
tated words is then used to retrain machine learning models that produce algorithmic-
generated images from strings of text that include one of the following terms:
woman, beauty, and imperfection. This research project acknowledges the social –
and now also technological – issues of wording and understanding concepts that
emerge around the broader notion of woman. The terminology adopted is meant to
be used as a cue, and not as a suggestion or a forced path. Cue as retrieval cue, as a
prompt that helps activate a process for remembering, rewriting, and reimagining
cultural memories, traumas, kinships, and disconnections around what woman,
beauty, and imperfection mean.
Overall, inside or outside of museums’ spaces, these projects combine critical
design with artistic interventions, to foster a deeper reflection on which algorithmic
practices we should adopt, how and why. Algorithmic art has been implemented in
world-renowned initiatives, organizations, and venues to tackle the wonders of
computational technologies and digital transformations, as much as the risks and
harms of incomplete or non-representative data in machine learning and human-
induced AI biases. While the case studies provided here do not offer empirical
proofs of their efficacy in promoting social and cultural sustainability, they still are
examples of sustainable applications for techno-cultural development in
4
https://igun.minneatairu.com/about/
340 G. Taurino
institutional contexts where a solely top-down policy-based approach fails. Each

project suggests the possibility of adopting a hybrid methodology – that is,
both human and data oriented – in order to identify the presence of cultural and digi-
tal barriers in institutions, as well as to open up museums for cross-disciplinary and
cross-collection research. Overall, algorithmic art approaches prove that coding and
computational methods can be use to reconsider the sustainability of cultural heri-
tage preservation, questioning archival processes that are defined by conflicts, vio-
lence, historical appropriations, or else by the impossibility to secure a future.
Similarly, they can also help reframe a discourse on ethical AI between museums,
artists, and the tech sector, to collectively and publicly ask whose heritage (Hall
1999) cultural collections represent and whose revolutions are the Internet, AI, and
other technological inventions (King 2003).
5 Conclusion
The chapter lists a series of research-creation approaches to techno-cultural sustain-

ability as evidence of the emerging field of algorithmic art for
Sustainable Development Goals (Goddard 2022). Creative uses of algorithms
appear helpful to reaffirm sustainable development in GLAM institutions in a col-
laborative, educational, inclusive way, and in parallel with top-down economic,
juridical, political strategies. While the empirical studies cited in the first part of the
paper are fundamental in defining a controlled and measurable setting for policies,
as Edgar Morin (2009) argues, there is something deeper to human development
that is yet to be found in economic and political programs. “The calculation of all
aspects of human life obscures what cannot be measured: […] things that are impor-
tant in our lives but seem extra-social, purely personal. All the solutions considered
are quantitative ones: economic growth, GDP growth” (Morin 2009, my transla-
tion). In contrast, “a policy integrating ecology in the whole of the human problem
would face the issues posed by the negative effects […] of the developments of our
civilization, including the degradation of solidarities, which would make us under-
stand that the establishment of new solidarities is a capital aspect of a policy of civi-
lization” (ibidem).
With respects to solidarity, diversity and inclusion, the paper argues that both
disruptive (e.g., projects that challenge normative assumptions in museum contexts)
and reparative (e.g., projects that fill the gaps left from archival losses in marginal-
ized art histories) approaches in algorithmic art can lead to higher commu-
nity engagement with cultural and technical ecosystems than more traditional
approaches in AI governance. Accounting for the unmeasurable, value-sensitive and
speculative design projects advocate for a techno-humanist attitude towards policy-
making – that is to say “a new kind of critical approach that focuses humanistic aims
through technology. If the humanities have a future in the current scene shaped
increasingly by a powerful techno-scientific fusion of information technology, bio-
technology, and nanotech, we will have to reorient our compass and rethink our
methods” (Lenoir in Riskin 2007: 209). As Donna Haraway and others (Haraway
2016; Hayles 2017; Braidotti 2019) have claimed, we need to seek and embrace a
critical view that can lead to an ecological collaboration among nature, humans, and
intelligent machines. A human-algorithmic version of Haraway’s concept of kinship
(2016) or else of Braidotti’s ethical bond (2019) can be built between human and
artificial intelligence through art, against the risks posed by Unitarian subjectivities,
isolationist policies, and the techno-individualist impositions of AI-based ranking
systems. In an ever-changing ethics of becoming (Braidotti 2006) and distributed
cognition (Hayles 2017), projects based on speculative experiments, imagination,
and invention contribute in constructing “micro-political modes of daily activism”
(ibidem), as well as a “dialectical vision of a creative, dynamic, humanistic technol-
ogy” (Rothschild 1981).
Artworks like Recognition, Forms of Attraction, MoSAIC, This Recommendation
is Broken, Museum Marginalia, Igùn, and Deep Fakes: Art and Its Double benefit
sustainable development by projecting “alternative technologies and alternative
modes of social and econo-political organization” (ibidem) within a feminist, deco-
lonial perspective on culture, technology, and the future of sustainability. At the
same time, it is important to clarify that the projects included in this paper are
mainly based at US and European museums. For this reason, the corpus is to be
interpreted as indicative of a small subset of a broader and yet-to-be-explored
research-creation movement that is tied to access to funding, digitization and com-
putational resources. It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this method-
ology that can only thrive in rich institutional environment. Nevertheless, the hope
is that this same movement will foster algorithmic art projects for cultural sustain-
ability outside of North-America and Europe, through the establishment of funded
programs for both the preservation of archival records and the subvention of art-
and-research residencies to critically, inventively maintain and reuse museums’ col-
lections. While experiments in AI and the Arts have already been scaled up thanks
to initiatives like Google Arts & Culture and projects like X Degrees of Separation,5
there is still a gap in financing computational and algorithmic art projects outside of
certain geographic and institutional areas.
In relation to algorithmic art as a means to achieve inter-generational and inter-
temporal distributive justice in sociocultural environments, it is also important to
ask to which extent past and present or present and future can be traded off to make
up for widespread social imbalance and finally determine a state of equity, fairness,
justice. In other words, “if distributive justice is defined in terms of opportunity, or
in terms of outcome, what inter-temporal opportunities, or outcomes, are just?”
(Areskoug 1976: 1). Since the first draft of the UN Recommendation on the ethics
of artificial intelligence was released in 2020, followed by a Resource Guide on AI
Strategies in 2021, the UN showed an increasing commitment in defining fair regu-
lations and ethical principles to ensure the implementation of safe and beneficial
AI applications for the society and counter potential harms. If a methodology based
5
https://artsexperiments.withgoogle.com/xdegrees/8gHu5Z5RF4BsNg/BgHD_Fxb-V_K3A
342 G. Taurino
on algorithmic art cannot yet tell us enough about the how-tos of fair AI practice in
a variety of contexts, it still represents a viable alternative to a system in crisis, being
it cultural or technological, economic or political, in the same way that “sustain-
ability represents the search for a way out of ‘unsustainability’” (Kagan 2011: 23).
References
Areskoug K. 1976. The Intertemporal Dimension of Distributive Justice. Reason Papers No.
3, 1–12.
Astobiza, Aníbal Monasterio, Mario Toboso, Manuel Aparicio, and Daniel López. 2021. AI Ethics
for Sustainable Development Goals. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 40 (2): 66–71.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2021.3056294.
Axelsson, Robert, Per Angelstam, Erik Degerman, Sara Teitelbaum, Kjell Andersson, Marine
Elbakidze, and Marcus K. Drotz. 2013. Social and Cultural Sustainability: Criteria, Indicators,
Verifier Variables for Measurement and Maps for Visualization to Support Planning. Ambio 42
(2): 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0376-0.
Azoulay, Ariella Aïsha. 2019. Potential History: Unlearning Imperialism. London: Verso Books.
Benjamin, Ruha. 2019. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code.
New York: Wiley.
Braidotti, R. 2006. Posthuman, All Too Human: Towards a New Process Ontology. Theory, Culture
& Society, 23(7–8), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276406069232.
Braidotti, Rosi. 2019. A Theoretical Framework for the Critical Posthumanities. Theory, Culture &
Society 36 (6): 31–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276418771486.
Bourdieu, P. 1986. The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research
for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood 241–258.
Buolamwini, J., Gebru, T. 2018. “Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in
Commercial Gender Classification.” Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 81:1–15,
Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency.
Chapman, Owen B., and Kim Sawchuk. 2012. Research-Creation: Intervention, Analysis and
‘Family Resemblances’. Canadian Journal of Communication 37 (1). https://doi.org/10.22230/
cjc.2012v37n1a2489.
Cohn, Jonathan. 2019. The Burden of Choice: Recommendations, Subversion, and Algorithmic
Culture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. https://www.degruyter.com/document/
doi/10.36019/9780813597850/html.
Cooley, Mike. 1987. Human Centred Systems: An Urgent Problem for Systems Designers. AI and
Society 1 (1): 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01905888.
Costanza-Chock, Sasha. 2020. Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We
Need. Information Policy. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Crawford, Kate. 2021. The Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial
Intelligence. New Haven: Yale University Press.
D’Ignazio, Catherine, and Lauren F. Klein. 2020. Data Feminism. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dafoe, Allan, Yoram Bachrach, Gillian Hadfield, Eric Horvitz, Kate Larson, and Thore Graepel.
2021. Cooperative AI: Machines Must Learn to Find Common Ground. Nature 593 (7857):
33–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01170-0.
Dunne, Anthony, and Fiona Raby. 2013. Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social
Dreaming. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Friedman, Batya, Peter H. Kahn Jr., and Alan Borning. 2008. Value Sensitive Design and
Information Systems. In The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, 69–101.
Hoboken: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470281819.ch4.
Frodeman, Robert, ed. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.001.0001.
Gill, Amandeep S., and Stefan Germann. 2021. Conceptual and Normative Approaches to AI
Governance for a Global Digital Ecosystem Supportive of the UN Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). AI and Ethics, May. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00058-z.
Goddard, Valentine. 2022. Art Shaped AI: Value Creation in the Digital Era. https://valentinegod-
dard.medium.com/art-shaped-ai-value-creation-in-the-digital-era-94694f1cea8b.
Goddard, V., D. Harris, J. Reyes, G. Taurino, S. Ratté, and M. Marta Kersten-Oertel. 2022.
Algorithmic Art to Counter Gender Bias in Artificial Intelligence: Changing AI’s Mis-Pear-
Ceptions of Us. Transformations Journal, submitted for publication.
Hall, Stuart. 1999. Un-Settling ‘The Heritage’, Re-Imagining the Post-Nation Whose Heritage?
Third Text 13 (49): 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09528829908576818.
Hamilton, Mark, Stephanie Fu, Mindren Lu, Johnny Bui, Darius Bopp, Zhenbang Chen, Felix
Tran, et al. 2021. MosAIc: Finding Artistic Connections across Culture with Conditional Image
Retrieval. ArXiv:2007.07177 [Cs, Stat], February. http://arxiv.org/abs/2007.07177.
Haraway, Donna J. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene, August.
Hawkes, Jon. 2001. The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s Essential Role in Public
Planning. Champaign: Common Ground.
Hayles, N. Katherine. 2017. Unthought: The Power of the Cognitive Nonconscious. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Jo, Eun Seo, and Timnit Gebru. 2020. Lessons from Archives: Strategies for Collecting Sociocultural
Data in Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability,
and Transparency, January, 306–316. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372829.
Kagan, Sacha. 2011. Art and Sustainability: Connecting Patterns for a Culture of Complexity.
Image, v. 25. Bielefeld: New Brunswick: Transcript; [Distributed by] Transaction Publishers.
Kashmere, Brett. 2010. Introduction: Cache Rules Everything Around Me. Counter-Archive.
INCITE Journal of Experimental Media, no. 2. http://www.incite-online.net/intro2.html.
Khamis, Alaa, Howard Li, Edson Prestes, and Tamas Haidegger. 2019. AI: A Key Enabler of
Sustainable Development Goals, Part 1 [Industry Activities]. IEEE Robotics Automation
Magazine 26 (3): 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2019.2928738.
Klein L. F. 2013. “The Image of Absence: Archival Silence, Data Visualization, and James Hemings.”
American Literature 1. 85 (4): 661–688. https://doi.org/10.1215/00029831-2367310.
Kurtas, Susan. n.d. Research Guides: UN Documentation: Development: Introduction. Accessed
22 Nov 2021. https://research.un.org/en/docs/dev/intro.
Leavy, Susan, Eugenia Siapera, and Barry O’Sullivan. 2021. Ethical Data Curation for AI: An
Approach Based on Feminist Epistemology and Critical Theories of Race. In Proceedings
of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 695–703. Virtual Event USA:
ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462598.
Liu et al. 2021. https://sdgs.un.org/documents/resource-guide-artificial-intelligence-ai-strate-
gies-25128.
Loach, Kirsten, Jennifer Rowley, and Jillian Griffiths. 2017. Cultural Sustainability as a Strategy
for the Survival of Museums and Libraries. International Journal of Cultural Policy 23 (2):
186–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2016.1184657.
Maeda, John. 2004. Creative Code. New York: Thames & Hudson.
Maheri, Alireza, Shahin Jalili, Yousef Hosseinzadeh, Reza Khani, and Mirreza Miryahyavi. 2021.
A Comprehensive Survey on Cultural Algorithms. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 62
(April): 100846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2021.100846.
Merewether, C. 2006. The Archive. Cambridge: MIT Press.
344 G. Taurino
Mickov, Biljana, and James Doyle (Eds.). 2013. Sustaining Cultural Development: Unified Systems
and New Governance in Cultural Life. London: Routledge.
Morin, E. 2009. Changer le rapport de l’homme à la nature n’est qu’un début. Le Monde.
Morley, Jessica, Luciano Floridi, Libby Kinsey, and Anat Elhalal. 2020. From What to How:
An Initial Review of Publicly Available AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate
Principles into Practices. Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (4): 2141–2168. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11948-019-00165-5.
Napier, D., M.H. Depledge, M. Knipper, R. Lovell, E. Ponarin, E. Sanabria, and F. Thomas. 2017.
Culture Matters: Using a Cultural Contexts of Health Approach to Enhance Policy-Making.
Report. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/
repository/handle/10871/31607.
Noble, Safiya Umoja. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism.
New York: NYU Press.
O’Neil, Cathy. 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and
Threatens Democracy. New York: Crown.
Pencarelli, Tonino, Mara Cerquetti, and Simone Splendiani. 2016. The Sustainable Management
of Museums: An Italian Perspective. Tourism and Hospitality Management 22 (1): 29–46.
Pop, Izabela Luiza, Anca Borza, Anuța Buiga, Diana Ighian, and Rita Toader. 2019. Achieving
Cultural Sustainability in Museums: A Step Toward Sustainable Development. Sustainability
11 (4): 970. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11040970.
Reynolds, Robert. 1994. An Introduction to Cultural Algorithms.
Reynolds, Robert G. 2020. Cultural Algorithms: Tools to Model Complex Dynamic Social Systems,
IEEE Press Series on Computational Intelligence. Hoboken: Wiley.
Reynolds, Robert G., Yousof A. Gawasmeh, and Areej Salaymeh. 2015. The Impact of Subcultures
in Cultural Algorithm Problem Solving. In 2015 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational
Intelligence, 1876–1884. Cape Town: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SSCI.2015.261.
Riskin, Jessica. 2007. Genesis Redux: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Artificial
Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226720838.
001.0001.
Rothschild, Joan A. 1981. A Feminist Perspective on Technology and the Future. Women’s Studies
International Quarterly, Women in Futures Research 4 (1): 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0148-0685(81)96373-9.
Sætra, Henrik Skaug. 2021. AI in Context and the Sustainable Development Goals: Factoring
in the Unsustainability of the Sociotechnical System. Sustainability 13 (4): 1738. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su13041738.
Seaver, N. 2017. Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems.
Big Data & Society, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717738104.
Stylianou-Lambert, Theopisti, Nikolaos Boukas, and Marina Christodoulou-Yerali. 2014. Museums
and Cultural Sustainability: Stakeholders, Forces, and Cultural Policies. International Journal
of Cultural Policy 20 (5): 566–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2013.874420.
Swanson, Kristen K., and Constance DeVereaux. 2017. A Theoretical Framework for Sustaining
Culture: Culturally Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Annals of Tourism Research 62 (January):
78–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.12.003.
Taurino, G. 2022. “The Brokenness in Our Recommendation Systems: Computational Art for
an Ethical Use of A.I.” In: Dingli, A., Pfeiffer, A., Serada, A., Bugeja, M., Bezzina, S. (eds)
Disruptive Technologies in Media, Arts and Design. ICISN 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks
and Systems, vol 382. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93780-5_11
Taylor, Joel. 2013. Intergenerational Justice: A Useful Perspective for Heritage Conservation.
CeROArt. Conservation, Exposition, Restauration d’Objets d’Art, no. HS (September). https://
doi.org/10.4000/ceroart.3510.
Throsby, David. 2002. Cultural Capital and Sustainability Concepts in the Economics of Cultural
Heritage: Economics of Cultural Heritage. In Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, ed.
Marta de la Torre, 101–117. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute.
UNESCO. 2016. Culture: Urban Future: Global Report on Culture for Sustainable Urban
Development. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
———. 2018. Culture for the 2030 Agenda. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
———. 2019. Culture | 2030 Indicators. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Vaio, Di, Rosa Palladino Assunta, Rohail Hassan, and Octavio Escobar. 2020. Artificial Intelligence
Literature Review. Journal of Business Research 121 (December): 283–314. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.019.
Zheng, Xinzhu, Ranran Wang, Arjen Y. Hoekstra, Maarten S. Krol, Yaxin Zhang, Kaidi Guo, Mukul
Sanwal, et al. 2021. Consideration of Culture Is Vital If We Are to Achieve the Sustainable
Development Goals. One Earth 4 (2): 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.01.012.
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence
on Circular Value Creation for Sustainable
Development Goals
Malahat Ghoreishi, Luke Treves, Roman Teplov, and Mikko Pynnönen
Abstract Circular economy (CE) business models provide solutions for sustain-
able development goals by closing, slowing, intensifying, de-materializing, and nar-
rowing resource loops. Addressing CE needs a strategic redefinition of the way
companies are creating and capturing value, which leads in designing a new value
creation system and innovative business models. For a full circular value creation,
circular products should be designed and developed specifically for repair, refur-
bishing, and remanufacturing purposes to close the loop. Hence, companies need to
radically change their business models and the way they create value towards more
innovative solutions based on CE strategies. However, implementation of circular
business models in business practices has not been widely utilized and requires
fundamental changes within the value chain. In a successful circular value creation,
a higher degree of transparency and high-quality data for the entire value chain is
required for further development of the products and processes, hence enabling
design optimization and management of supply chain. Recent debates show that
artificial intelligence (AI) can be considered as an enabler of CE to help companies
in innovating circular business models. Different applications of AI such as machine
learning, automation and robotics, and machine visions have the capability of col-
lecting, analyzing, and storing digital data. AI-enhanced products and services can
tackle environmental problems through independent interactions with their sur-
roundings and self-learning capabilities, which results in improved environmental
performance characteristics. In this chapter, we identify the role of AI in circular
value creation for sustainable development goals.
M. Ghoreishi (*)
LUT School of Business and Management, LUT University, Lappeenranta, Finland
Faculty of Technology, LAB Universtiy of Applied Sciences, Lappeenranta, Finland
L. Treves · R. Teplov · M. Pynnönen
LUT School of Business and Management, LUT University, Lappeenranta, Finland
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
348 M. Ghoreishi et al.
Keywords Artificial intelligence · Sustainable Development Goals · Business

model · Circular economy · Industry 4.0 · Value creation
1 Introduction
Sustainability has been discussed widely since the topic was identified by Brundtland
in 1987 (Commission on Environment and Development 1987). To promote sus-
tainable development approach, the United Nation established 17 Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 as a universal action to stop poverty, protect the
planet, and increase peace and prosperity (United Nations 2015). However, despite
the significant efforts made by different nations, the successful achievement of
goals objective is often hampered by the economic challenges and profitability
issues faced by businesses. The concept of CE has gained attention of researchers,
policymakers, and various organizations worldwide as a way of promoting SDGs
while enhancing economic development (EM Foundation 2015; Geissdoerfer et al.
2017). The CE model is an alternative to a traditional linear system, which is respon-
sible for current environmental problems, resource depletion, and climate change.
CE practices contribute directly to achieving Goal 12 of SDGs (ensure sustainable
consumption and production patterns). Integration of CE principles for SDG 12
requires an early-stage consideration in product design and development processes.
CE-oriented business models are built on the principles of keeping products and
materials in the economy as long as possible with highest value retention. Since the
main aim of CE models is to eliminate the use of finite material and energy resources
in the entire life cycle of the products and materials, CE models are seen as a poten-
tial driver in SDG 12. In CE the value creation is decoupled from consuming limited
resources by leveraging sets of regenerative, restorative, and efficient productivity-
oriented strategies which keeps products, components, and materials for a longer
time with highest possible value (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2013; Lieder and
Rashid 2016). According to Bressanelli et al. (2018), implementing CE strategies
creates a net benefit of €1.8 trillion by 2030 in Europe alone while creating new
jobs, stimulating innovation, as well as increasing considerable environmental ben-
efits. CE is the core in the UN SDGs (Schroeder et al. 2019) which can be achieved
through reducing structural waste which leads to decrease the demand for limited
virgin material and transformation from consumption of the natural resources that
still have a useful life but would otherwise be sent to landfill (Hysa et al. 2020).
Despite of all the benefits CE can bring to the environment, society, and government
(ESG), the adoption of CE strategies and how organizations create, deliver, and
capture value in CE is still uncertain, and only minor improvements have been rec-
ognized in decoupling from linear resource consumption (Whicher et al. 2018).
The recent report by Sitra (2021) highlights the core role of data in transition
towards CE. In a CE, data on resource flows, location tracking, monitoring condi-
tion and quality, real-time data gathering, processing of input-output flows, precise
prediction, lower production downtime, and optimization of energy consumption
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Circular Value Creation for Sustainable… 349
are essential (Hughes et al. 2021). CE requires a strong integration and connection
of the value chain which brings data economy at the center when considering devel-
opment of CE solutions. Since Industry 4.0 technologies are capable of collecting,
storing, analyzing, and processing large amount of data, they can position such data
and information flows to enable resource and energy efficiency towards a more
sustainable CE (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2019; Kristoffersen et al. 2020;
Ramadoss et al. 2018; Lacy et al. 2020). Industry 4.0 technologies such as Internet
of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), and big data are considered as digital
technologies which are enablers of CE. According to Yoo et al. (2010), Industry 4.0
technologies share three essential characteristics which distinct digital technologies
from other technologies are (1) that they are programmable, (2) creating, sharing
and capturing data as a homogeneous source, and (3) reinforcing each other by self-
referencing. Such technologies have critical roles in CE by creating precise data for
improving resource management and efficient decision-making, as well as tracking
the flow of products, components, and materials throughout all the stages of indus-
trial life cycle (Antikainen et al. 2018; Nascimento et al. 2019; Lacy et al. 2020;
Bressanelli et al. 2018).
However, there is still a lack of concrete guidance on how to leverage Industry
4.0 technologies to support CE strategies which offer novel opportunities for busi-
ness leaders (Kristoffersen et al. 2020). The challenge of moving towards a full CE
is substantial, and the world is only at the early stages, for which Industry 4.0 tech-
nologies can maximize the transformation of business models, products, and ser-
vices for a more durable and sustainable outcomes and help organizations to
overcome challenges and simultaneously remain competitive in sustainability
aspects in business. Hence, the primary objective of this work is to investigate how
CE and digitalization affect business model innovation. The remainder of this book
chapter is organized as follows: next sections respectively investigate the key role of
AI in CE and how AI can be utilized to leverage circular value creation with sup-
porting business cases.
2 AI in CE
Industry 4.0 technologies and its supporting systems provide integrated tools that
can help tackle these issues by providing improved “any-time,” “any-where” for
“any-thing,” tracking, and insights of their business processes (Lee 2018). This has
the potential to transform how businesses implement their sustainability strategies.
Consequently, companies are increasingly developing new business models that
focus on reuse, repair, and remanufacturing of their products and services (Melander
and Pazirandeh 2019). The combination of digital transformation, the circular econ-
omy, and business model innovation presents a huge opportunity for businesses to
create and capture new value. Digital technologies can play role in three different
CE business model innovations: (1) as tools to support, identify, and implement
business models related to strategies, patterns, and components (Lewandowski
2016; Bocken et al. 2016), (2) to support the implementation of managerial prac-
tices for CE transitions in companies (Centobelli et al. 2020; Ünal et al. 2019), and
(3) to offer service-based business models in which a product is replaced by a ser-
vice supported by machine intelligence (Alcayaga et al. 2019; Tukker 2015).
According to (Berg et al. 2020), the digital technologies can enable CE as follows:
• Digital technologies which enable more efficient and circular manufacturing
processes of materials and products such as intelligent design, sensor technolo-
gies, machine learning, robotics, etc.
• Digital technologies which enable tracking and tracing the products and compo-
nents, optimization of value chain, product and service development, and increas-
ing reuse, repair, and refurbishment such as IoT, block chain, etc.
• Digital technologies which connect consumers and producers and enable service
development and dematerialization such as AI-powered platforms
AI as one of the Industry 4.0 technologies describe self-learning and self-
correcting computational processes that mimic human-like reasoning and problem-
solving (Kok et al. 2009). AI techniques respond to their environment through
cognitive capabilities and intelligent capabilities (Townsend and Hunt 2019). The
main benefit of AI techniques lies in their capacity to collect, process, and analyze
large quantities of data in short and up to real time from various sources (Mühlroth
and Grottke 2020). Apart from handling superior quantities of data, AI techniques
detect and unveil patterns that were not visible before, to suggest relations humans
are not aware of. Furthermore, AI techniques automatically deduct consequences
based on its analysis and matches data input to a connected task (Balasubramanian
et al. 2020). These capacities make use cases in the context of CE evident. AI tech-
niques can support circularity of the whole value chain by consumption and demand
prediction, smart product design, and enabling/enhancing remanufacturing pro-
cesses by remote monitoring (Ghoreishi and Happonen 2020b). AI techniques can
enable CE opportunities by boosting circular product design and development, opti-
mizing infrastructure to ensure the flows of such products, and operating circular
business models (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2019). According to Ghoreishi and
Happonen (2020a), AI can enhance the value of recycled and recovered materials by
smart waste sorting. AI-based platforms can enable product and material sharing
which enhances extension of product’s life cycle (Waheed and Khalid 2019).
Different roles of AI techniques in different cycles of CE and customer support
phase are illustrated in Fig. 1.
AI can operate circular business models by introducing new business proposi-
tions such as asset sharing, product as a service, potentials to cut inventory levels,
and AI-based platform. Dynamic pricing and matching algorithms can enable the
sharing and access business models whereas in revers logistics and remanufacturing
requires a powerful AI-based analytical model to collect customer and product data
and transfer it as a feasible decision-making model (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation 2019).
An example of utilization of AI circular business model for AI-based platform is
Israeli startup Algoretail (2021) which uses machine learning to automate grocery
Fig. 1 Role of AI in CE. (Based on Ghoreishi and Happonen 2020a)
retail stocking procedures from the supplier onto to the store shelves. The auto-
mated AI-powered replenishment tool, Algoretail IO, offers a data-driven sales fore-
casting which helps in reducing waste of fresh food items. In addition, Algoretail IO
provides granular reporting with graphic representations of insights along with cus-
tomizable alerts regarding products that are about to expire. This way by utilizing
AI, the startup helps groceries in reducing 35% waste reduction as well as 15%
increase in their net profit.
An example of product as a service business model is the American startup
Smarter Sorting (2021), which develops a cloud-based software as a service (SaaS)
for waste management platform for retailers. AI is utilized to provide real-time data
and up-to-date information on inventories, such as the attributes of a product and its
packaging. This allows retailers to better understand which products are eligible for
recycling, which are suitable for donations, and so on. These insights cut waste
volumes and reduce disposal costs. In addition, full transparency into the data and
trends driving the retail operations and ensuring compliance and operational effi-
ciency is provided by store and item-level analytics which increases business
success.
3 Circular Value Creation
Since circularity aims to maintain the functionality of the materials and components
at their maximum level as long as possible throughout their entire life cycle, mate-
rial stocks and flows are required to be managed in a sustainable way. To incorpo-
rate sustainability and circularity into products, product designers require the right
tools, including measurement frameworks and tools that integrate metrics and indi-
cators, which are essential to maximize value creation from products and materials
(Van den Berg and Bakker 2015). Most quantitative sustainability tools which are
currently utilized by businesses are based on life cycle assessment (LCA), in which
the environmental impacts of components and materials are assessed along parts of
its life cycle (Ramani et al. 2010). Although life cycle assessment, life cycle inven-
tory, and the current methods of measuring product sustainability are useful, they
are more suitable for post-design evaluations of completed products (Hapuwatte
and Jawahir 2019). A model-based methodology is required in the design phase to
predict how sustainability decisions will affect the product during its whole life
cycle (Hapuwatte et al. 2017; Hapuwatte and Jawahir 2019). When designing and
developing new product, once the specifications of the products are made, minor
changes can be made since resources, infrastructures, and activities have been allo-
cated to a certain design (Bocken et al. 2014a). Van den Berg and Bakke (2015)
distinguish the key features of circular products as “future proof, disassembly,
maintenance, remake and recycling.”
To achieve circular value creation, organizations need to design strategies which
support value in circular business model such as (1) utilizing material resources and
energy efficiently (narrowing the loop), (2) producing products that are natural, reli-
able, durable, with the focus on life extension through the standardization and com-
patibility, upgradability and adaptability, and dis- reassembly of product’s individual
physical components (slowing the loop), (3) reusing products, components and
materials through dis – reassembly principles, design for recycling and remanufac-
turing as well as design for environment with the focus on technological and bio-
logical cycles (closing the loop), and use non-toxic materials and renewable energies
(regenerate the loop) (Bocken et al. 2014a).
Value creation in CE occurs through the recovery of returned products within the
supply chain in closing the loop (Schenkel et al. 2015). Therefore, it is essential to
develop products in a way that the materials can remain in the loop and be continu-
ously and safely recycled into raw materials for manufacturing new products
(Bocken et al. 2016). In this way by adding value from the forward and reverse sup-
ply chain, CE business models can leverage the process of circular value creation
for costumers, environment, economy, and information value. For this reason, sup-
port of all the partners within the supply chains in developing awareness and new
skills is essential in rendering business models for circular value creation (Ünal
et al. 2019).
For a continuous flow of resources in CE, firms need to radically change their
business model for innovative product design. Based on assertions and design
principles for sustainability, circular design should focus on circular supplies,

resource conservation, multiple cycles, long-life use, and system change. This
implies firms to innovate their business model strategies to create and capture new
value and develop competitive advantages from CE and circular product design
(Linder and Williander 2017; Urbinati et al. 2017; Lin 2018). For instance, “slowing
the loops” strategies can allow firms to encourage their customers to make efficient
choices by reducing their consumption habits while extending and exploiting their
product’s residual value. Examples include the leasing of products, car sharing, and
clothes return initiatives. While “closing the loops” strategies seek to extend
resource value through exploiting their residual value and industrial symbiosis that
use residual outputs from one process. Examples include the collection, supply, and
recycling of products (Bocken et al. 2014b).
According to Mishra et al. (2018), opportunities for circular value creation can
be analyzed based on four broad archetypes as follows:
• “Inner value creation loops, which concerns maintaining of the integrity of prod-
ucts as highest level through service and maintenance.
• Extending value creation loops, which concerns the use of products and materi-
als for longer time.
• Cascading value creation loops, which concerns cascading use in adjacent value
chains (where the costs of reused products and materials are lower or have supe-
rior value compared to virgin or non-renewable materials).
• Pure value creation loops, which concerns the creation of pure, high-quality
feedstock at the outset (avoiding contamination and toxicity to allow for reuse
and cost avoidance of clean up or purification).”
Implementing these archetypes in specific business models take many forms
such as performance and servitization-based models, product-service systems, and
collaborative consumption (Ghisellini et al. 2016). Considering CE-oriented busi-
ness models adds uncertainty and complexities to conventional business models; the
addition of reverse logistics; the return of resources at what time, quantity, and qual-
ity; as well as customer perceptions would be useful in developing a CBM (Bocken
et al. 2018). According to Urbinati et al. (2017), circular principles can be integrated
into business models in three ways: downstream circular (new schemes, customer
interfaces make alternatives for value), upstream circular (change the systems for
value creation), or fully circular (a combination of downstream and upstream prin-
ciples). In the context of current business models, AI techniques have great potential
to create circular value (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2019).
4 AI and Circular Value Creation
AI is one of the key enablers of circular business models that can enhance and accel-
erate CE through product design and development processes which are assisted by
machine learning for faster testing and prototyping (Ellen MacArthur Foundation
2019). AI techniques can integrate real-time and historical data from products and
users which helps to increase circulation of the products for a longer period of time
by predicting precise price and demand, maintenance services, and smart inventory
management. Enyoghasi and Badurdeen (2021) state that assessing the demand
through AI enables optimized decisions regarding material reusability. EMF (2019)
emphasize this point further, affirming that AI supports CE implementation by
improving reverse logistics and associated decision-making processes in sorting
and disassembling and by utilizing both historical and real-time data to predict
demand and thus optimize inventory and production management (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation 2019). Focusing on the CE micro level which involves companies, prod-
ucts, and consumers, the role of AI can be analyzed based on the regenerative, share,
optimize, loop, virtualize, and exchange (ReSOLVE) framework (Jabbour et al.
2018) presented in Table 1.
Recent models of “human-only,” “human-machine,” and “machine-only”
decision-making are shifting the way organizations learned and evolved innovation
based on wide range of AI applications (Daugherty and Wilson 2018). According to
Brem et al. (2021), AI has two main roles in transforming innovation as originator
and facilitator of innovation. As an originator, AI shapes the creation of products
and processes and is the starting point for innovation where the product portfolio is
based on software and company maturity is emerging. As a facilitator, AI augments
existing products and processes and is the starting point for transformation where
the product portfolio is based on hardware and company maturity is established.
AI-driven business models can play a significant role in achieving SDGs through
their ability to make alternative ownership options a reality (Di Vaio et al., 2020)
that focus on providing access to intangible outcome-based services or the combi-
nation of tangible products and intangible services such as use- or result-orientated
business models, rather than product-orientated models. Most of these offerings can
be categorized into the product-oriented (PO), use-oriented (UO), and
Table 1 Capabilities of AI based on ReSOLVE framework in CE principles (developed by

authors)
Framework
component Circular value creation initiatives AI techniques
Regenerate Return recovered materials and resources AI-powered robots,
AI-based software
Share Share assets, reuse secondhand products, AI-based platforms,
maintenance services machine learning
Optimize Digitally connected supply chain, digital AI-based platforms, online
product passport databases
Loop Remanufacturing products or components, Robotics, machine vision,
recycling and upcycling products machine learning
Virtualize Dematerialize indirectly (e.g., online shops) Intelligent automation
platforms
Exchange Intelligent design and prototyping Machine learning and
algorithms
result-oriented (RO) business models, which are considered as the main types of
product/service business models (Reim et al. 2015). In these scenarios, the main
focus of PO is to sell a tangible product with additional services. The focus also
remains on consumer ownership and the consumption of resources similar to in the
past. As a consequence, PO models are considered to contribute less to achieving
SDGs. Alternatively, in UO and RO, we see a shift towards more sustainable con-
sumption through alternative business models that focus on the “stewardship” of
tangible and intangible product-services. Specifically, in a UO model, while the
product is still central to an offering, rather than selling it to the customer, the access
and usage of the product are guaranteed by the provider for the specific period of
time and are subscription based paid by the user. Further, in RO, the result is what
the customer pays for rather than a product, and the supplier is fully responsible for
the result. Table 2 provides a comparison of three different business models in terms
of value creation, value delivery, and value capturing.
To illustrate the role of AI in different business models and their value provision
process, we selected three cases, each presenting one business model type. For PO
model, we selected a textile industry company Unspun. Unspun is a textile industry
company that utilizes 3D body scanning to produce sustainable tailor-made jeans
for customers. The example case for UO model is Naava, a company which offers
air-purifying design plant walls for office spaces. As a RO model, we selected com-
pany called Augury. Augury provides machine health solutions for industry. The
value process of the cases is analyzed in Table 3, and the role of AI is highlighted in
each phase.
AI is utilized for circular value creation in different ways in each case. In PO case
Unspun, the role of AI in value creation is to scan and collect accurate data of cus-
tomer’s body to enable the tailor-made jeans. There is an option of a remote mea-
surement. In both UO and RO cases, the main role of AI is in the remote condition
monitoring. In UO case Naava, AI keeps the plant wall operating in optimum way
and automatically, so that the customer doesn’t have to. In RO case Augury, AI
Table 2 Comparison of AI-facilitated SDG high-level business model categories in terms of value
creation, value delivery, and value capturing
Product-oriented Use-oriented Result-oriented
Value Provider is responsible Provider takes Provider takes responsibility
creation for agreed services responsibility of the for delivering results
usability of products and
services
Value Provider is responsible Provider guarantees the Provider is responsible for
delivery for selling and usability of the physical delivering results
providing services product along with services
products
Value Customer pays for Customer can make Customer payments are
capturing physical product and continuous payments over based on outcome units, that
for the performed time (e.g., leasing) is, they pay for the result
services
Source: Reim et al. (2015)
Table 3 Case example analysis based on different roles of AI in circular value creation (developed
by authors)
Product-oriented Use-oriented Result-oriented
(Unspun) (Naava) (Augury)
Value Aims to reduce waste Offers smart wall of plants Offers an asset management
creation by offering sustainable that constantly purify indoor and maintenance service for
jeans that are tailored air and provide a constant industrial machines
individually for perfect stream of clean air The role of AI:
fit The role of AI: The system uses sensors and
The role of AI: Remote condition AI for monitoring and
Data collection management system that detecting mechanical errors
The customers’ body is keeps the plants in optimum in machines and to provide
scanned by AI-powered condition by connecting the preventive maintenance
3D scanners sensor data of airflow, water,
and light and, e.g., adopting
to weather data
Value The body scan data is An operating system for The sensors collect data from
delivery turned to digital jeans. remote management and a the machines. The data is
These are then full maintenance service stored into cloud and
manufactured by The role of AI: analyzed for problems to
robotics-powered Full operation and prevent failures and manage
sewing machines maintenance with automated the maintenance
The role of AI: AI-operated system The role of AI:
The AI algorithms are The sensors measure the
used to digitally design vibrations, magnetisms, and
the jeans around temperatures in real time. AI
customer’s 3D avatar analyzes the abnormalities in
the data and provides
instructions and prioritized
action points
Value Order delivery model Monthly service fee End-to-end service with a
capture The technology enables The role of AI: warranty for broken machines
a zero-inventory model Optimize the service and The role of AI:
and reduces waste maintenance operating costs Provides accurate and reliable
The role of AI: for provider information on machine
AI enables the health
made-to-order model
“listens” to the machine data to detect anomalies and to preventatively inform the
customer of potential failures. The aim is to eliminate downtime and to optimize the
production. Moreover, the role of AI in value delivery of the cases varies. In the PO
case Unspun, the role of AI is to design a 3D avatar of the customer’s data points
and utilize this in fitting the jeans as well as optimizing the production. In UO case
Naava, AI has the most central role among these cases. AI handles automatically the
remote monitoring and remote operation of the plant wall and notifies the mainte-
nance teams automatically. In Augury’s RO model, AI-based remote monitoring
and preventative maintenance are the key roles, but AI does not handle the opera-
tion. The value capture model and the role of AI in it differ most among the cases.
In Unspun’s PO model, the value capture model is the basic order-delivery model,
for which AI is the key enabler, whereas in Naava’s UO model, the value capture
model is a product-as-a-service leasing model (the wall can also be purchased) with
a monthly fee. The major role of AI in this case relates to optimizing the provider’s
maintenance costs. In the RO case Augury, the role of AI is the biggest in value
capture. The unplanned downtime is very costly in manufacturing, and to prevent
this, the companies are willing to pay. Augury’s AI technology is very accurate and
constantly learns from all their cases which optimizes prediction and prevention of
downtimes. The company also provides insurance for customers in case that a
machine gets broken even though they use the service.
5 Discussions
Technologies like AI and its supporting systems facilitate the transition towards
more sustainability-oriented business models by bringing together suppliers and
demanders of goods, services, as well as environmental and societal factors which
are challenging traditional business model thinking (Alstyne et al. 2016).
Furthermore, business models in CE and sharing economy model are different from
traditional and current business thinking. Such trends aim to change existing busi-
ness models towards new ways of producing, transporting, consuming, and reusing
materials, components, and products/services. Smarter business models will enable
higher efficiency of resource consumption as well as customization of products/
services in a way that can improve the offering to customers while reducing their
environmental footprint and influencing the positive behavior of network partners
(Bocken et al. 2014b; Jørgensen et al. 2018). This can result in positive sustainabil-
ity effects through enhanced product usage and replacing products with new, higher
efficient, more innovative products and materials (Sundin and Bras 2005). Therefore,
the combination of such product and service solutions will lead to of offering
the united product and service solutions that have economic, social, and environ-
mental effects. This is especially important as digital platform ecosystems and
users are moving from the principle of ownership to stewardship, which is increas-
ingly met by intangible services rather than tangible products as in the past (Reim
et al. 2015). In practice, the shift to these business models enabled by AI techniques
can contribute to product life extension through service, remote, and predictive
maintenance and repair that have the potential to reduce the environmental impact
in a product’s life cycle. In addition, it has the potential of slowing resource loops
by extending the value chain of products and materials for longer periods and to
recover raw materials after the lifetime of the products for their reuse (Bocken and
Short 2016) through the development of take-back systems, refurbishment, design
for circularity, and recycling (Kristensen and Remmen 2019).
Building upon the theme of digital enhancement, AI techniques (Breidbach et al.
2014; Li and Found 2017; Storbacka et al. 2016) that influence the development of
a product bring together a network of interconnected actors and objects that work in
coopetition to create and capture mutual value (Akaka and Vargo 2015; Vargo and
Lusch 2004). This can result in the key challenge of conceptualizing and capturing
these interactions and engagements across numerous technological contexts
(Breidbach and Brodie 2017; Li and Found 2017). Emergent technologies like AI
and connected technologies, including IoT and smart sensors, can facilitate this
through their ability to automatically and autonomously collect, analyze, interpret,
and integrate elements from the physical world and computer-/internet-based sys-
tems into their offerings. This can result in improvements in efficiency, accuracy,
and economic benefits for providers of products and services and their consumers
through both parties’ ability to provide and collect data anytime, anywhere, on any-
thing, helping providers to continuously improve product design, including the abil-
ity to enhance its durability, and enabling the components of a tangible product to
remain in use longer leading to higher return on investment and enhancing user
experience and engagement. AI supported by IoT technologies and smart sensors
can enhance this further through its ability to allow digital platform ecosystems to
monitor a product’s component condition, location, and status which supports prod-
uct sharing between multiple users. In turn, these outcomes can be used to improve
strategies of recovery such as remanufacturing, reusing, and recycling of physical
items (Alcayaga et al. 2019), and where intangible services can provide a viable
alternative to tangible products. This enables providers and their complementor/
supply networks to make precise estimations on physical elements of a product’s
useful life cycle, supports decisions on optimal remanufacturing time of a certain
product, and can improve the profitability of remanufacturing activities
(Ingemarsdotter et al. 2020). This is achieved through the ability to make better
assessments of a product’s condition and take preventative actions to extend its
life cycle.
6 Conclusion
In this chapter we highlighted the important role of AI in circular value creation for
SDGs. Adopting CE requires companies to initiate and develop business models
based on circular value creation principles such as remanufacture, dematerializa-
tion, sharing, and servitization. This can be best enabled and achieved by utilizing
disruptive technologies such as AI. Different applications of AI can be utilized in
different circular value creation and accelerate the transition towards a successful
CE. A critical enabler in these processes is the business model innovation built upon
the principles of CE and SDG which focus on reuse, repair, and remanufacturing of
products (Mont et al. 2006) based upon the principles of collaboration/coopetition
with their customers, partners/competitors, and suppliers using AI technologies.
This can result in different levels of environmental advantages through new prod-
ucts (Melander and Pazirandeh 2019), including higher energy efficiency, lower
material consumption, increase in pure materials, lower fuel consumption, preven-
tion of toxic components and materials, and use of digitalization in predicting
enhanced usage and integration of more environmentally friendly materials. Repair,
maintenance, reuse, and remanufacturing products are the ways through which
companies are able to enhance resource utilization and to prolong the lifetime of a
product (Mont et al. 2006; Östlin et al. 2009). For a successful remanufacturing,
access to products that can be remanufactured is important, for example, through
take-back agreements with customers (Östlin et al. 2009). These kinds of agree-
ments can enable recycling, where companies are responsible for the end of life of
products (Smith and Crotty 2008). In addition, collaboration with different partners
within a company’s ecosystem can lead to saving raw material, improving waste
disposal, limiting pollutions, reducing energy consumption, as well as packing and
transportation (Manzini and Vezzoli 2003).
Since data plays the core role in circular value creation, companies that uti-
lize digital technologies such AI and IoT can enable integration of data into all
principles of CE can build more efficient business models and consequently higher
efficiency in resource and material usage with lower costs. Therefore, one of the
future research focuses recommended by this chapter is assessing the role of
Artificial Intelligence of Things (AIoT) in circular value creation for SDFGs. IoT
sensors can collect and transfer precise data on product status and conditions which
can be further processed and analyzed faster with AI. In an IoT-enhanced environ-
ment, AI can close the loops of products and materials, lower energy and resource
usage, and therefore enhance circular value creation. However, despite all the poten-
tials offered by digital technologies in creating circular values and SDGs, it needs to
be stated that such technologies can simultaneously lead to unsustainable practices.
As these practices are significantly technologically driven and revenue-driven fol-
lowing linear production and consumption levels, the introduction of smart tech-
nologies and automation may lead to increased consumption behavior, energy use,
and environmental impacts as well. Industry 4.0 technologies can lead to a huge
environmental footprint and energy intensity. Therefore, the environmental and
societal impacts of the digital technologies themselves must be carefully assessed,
and circular principles must be embedded in the digital products, as a condition of
their deployment in the economy, to ensure a global net positive balance.
Digitalization can use circular economy as a guiding principle, a target to reach a
sustainable endpoint. On the other hand, digital technologies are dependent on the
availability of critical raw materials. Therefore, the challenge will be to develop the
digital circular economy in such a way that the digital technologies compensate for
the need for materials that they are made of. There is a strong demand to introduce
principles of dematerialization, lifetime extension, and recycling into the digital
systems that build the circular economy.
References
Akaka, Melissa Archpru, and Stephen L. Vargo. 2015. Extending the Context of Service: From
Encounters to Ecosystems. Journal of Services Marketing 29: 463–471. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JSM-03-2015-0126.
Alcayaga, Andres, Melanie Wiener, and Erik G. Hansen. 2019. Towards a Framework of Smart-
Circular Systems: An Integrative Literature Review. Journal of Cleaner Production 221:
622–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.085.
Algoretail.co. 2021. Algoretail. https://www.algoretail.co.il/.
Alstyne, Marshall W., G.G. Parker, and S.P. Choudary. 2016. Pipelines, Platforms, and the
New Rules of Strategy. Harvard Business Review 94 (4): 54–62. https://hbr.org/2016/04/
pipelines-platforms-and-the-new-rules-of-strategy.
Antikainen, Maria, Teuvo Uusitalo, and Päivi Kivikytö-Reponen. 2018. Digitalisation as an Enabler
of Circular Economy. Procedia CIRP 73: 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.04.027.
Balasubramanian, Natarajan, Yang Ye, and Xu. Mingtao. 2020. Substituting Human Decision-
Making with Machine Learning: Implications for Organizational Learning. Academy of
Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0470.
Berg, Holger, Kévin Le Blévennec, Eivind Kristoffersen, Bernard Strée, Arnaud Witomski, Nicole
Stein, Ton Bastein, Stephan Ramesohl, and Karl Vrancken. 2020. Digital Circular Economy: A
Cornerstone of a Sustainable European Industry Transformation. ECERA European Circular
Economy Research Alliance. Belgium
Enyoghasi, Christian, and Badurdeen Fazleena. 2021. Industry 4.0 for sustainable manufactur-
ing. Opportunities at the product, process, and system levels. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105362.
Bocken, N.M.P., and S.W. Short. 2016. Towards a Sufficiency-Driven Business Model: Experiences
and Opportunities. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 18 (March): 41–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.07.010.
Bocken, N.M.P., M. Farracho, R. Bosworth, and R. Kemp. 2014a. The Front-End of Eco-Innovation
for Eco-Innovative Small and Medium Sized Companies. Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management – JET-M 31 (1): 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2013.10.004.
Bocken, N.M.P., S.W. Short, P. Rana, and S. Evans. 2014b. A Literature and Practice Review
to Develop Sustainable Business Model Archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production 65
(September): 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039.
Bocken, Nancy M.P., Ingrid de Pauw, Conny Bakker, and Bram van der Grinten. 2016. Product
Design and Business Model Strategies for a Circular Economy. Journal of Industrial and
Production Engineering 33 (5): 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124.
Bocken, N.M.P., C.S.C. Schuit, and C. Kraaijenhagen. 2018. Experimenting with a Circular
Business Model: Lessons from Eight Cases. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
28 (February): 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.02.001.
Breidbach, Christoph F., and Roderick J. Brodie. 2017. Engagement Platforms in the Sharing
Economy: Conceptual Foundations and Research Directions. Journal of Service Theory and
Practice 27 (4): 761–777. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-04-2016-0071.
Breidbach, Christoph F., Roderick Brodie, and Linda Hollebeek. 2014. Beyond Virtuality:
From Engagement Platforms to Engagement Ecosystems. Managing Service Quality 24 (6):
592–611. https://doi.org/10.1108/MSQ-08-2013-0158.
Brem, Alexander, Ferran Giones, and Marcel Werle. 2021. The AI Digital Revolution in Innovation:
A Conceptual Framework of Artificial Intelligence Technologies for the Management of
Innnovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TEM.2021.3109983.
Bressanelli, Gianmarco, Federico Adrodegari, Marco Perona, and Nicola Saccani. 2018. The
Role of Digital Technologies to Overcome Circular Economy Challenges in PSS Business
Models: An Exploratory Case Study. Procedia CIRP 73: 216–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procir.2018.03.322.
Centobelli, Piera, Roberto Cerchione, Davide Chiaroni, Pasquale Del Vecchio, and Andrea
Urbinati. 2020. Designing Business Models in Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature
Review and Research Agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment 29 (4): 1734–1749.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2466.
Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Report of the World Commission on

Environment and Development: Our Common Future.
Daugherty, P.R., and H.J. Wilson. 2018. Collaborative Intelligence: Humans and AI Are Joining
Forces. Harvard Business Review 96 (4): 114–123.
Di Vaio, Assunta, Palladino Rosa, Rohail Hassan, and Escobar Octavio. 2020. Artificial intelli-
gence and business models in the sustainable development goals perspective: A systematic
literature review. Journal of Business Research 121: 283–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2020.08.019.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2013. Towards the Circular Economy Volume 1. Ellen MacArthur
Foundation. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819806775545321.
Ellen MacArthur. 2019. Artificial Intelligence and the Circular Economy – AI as a Tool to
Accelerate the Transition. London. http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications.
EM Foundation. 2015. Towards a Circular Economy: Business Rationale for an Accelerated
Transition. Greener Management International 20. https://doi.org/2012-04-03.
Geissdoerfer, Martin, Paulo Savaget, Nancy M.P. Bocken, and Erik Jan Hultink. 2017. The Circular
Economy – A New Sustainability Paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production 143: 757–768.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.
Ghisellini, Patrizia, Catia Cialani, and Sergio Ulgiati. 2016. A Review on Circular Economy:
The Expected Transition to a Balanced Interplay of Environmental and Economic
Systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 114 (February): 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JCLEPRO.2015.09.007.
Ghoreishi, Malahat, and Ari Happonen. 2020a. New Promises AI Brings into Circular Economy
Accelerated Product Design: A Review on Supporting Literature. E3S Web of Conferences 158.
10.1051/e3sconf/202015806002.
Ghoreishi, Malahat., and Happonen, Ari. 2020b. Key Enablers for Deploying Artificial Intelligence
for Circular Economy Embracing Sustainable Product Design: Three Case Studies. In 13th
International Engineering Research Conference (13TH EURECA 2019), 2233:050008. AIP
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0001339
Hapuwatte, Buddhika M., and I.S. Jawahir. 2019. A Total Life Cycle Approach for Developing
Predictive Design Methodologies to Optimize Product Performance. Procedia Manufacturing
33: 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2019.04.003.
Hapuwatte, B.M., F. Badurdeen, and I.S. Jawahir. 2017. Metrics-Based Integrated Predictive
Performance Models for Optimized Sustainable Product Design. Smart Innovation, Systems
and Technologies 68: 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57078-5_3.
Hysa, Eglantina, Alba Kruja, Naqeeb Ur Rehman, and Rafael Laurenti. 2020. Circular Economy
Innovation and Environmental Sustainability Impact on Economic Growth: An Integrated
Model for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 12 (12): 4831. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12124831.
Ingemarsdotter, Emilia, Ella Jamsin, and Ruud Balkenende. 2020. Opportunities and Challenges in
IoT-Enabled Circular Business Model Implementation – A Case Study. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling 162 (November): 105047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105047.
Jabbour, Ana Beatriz, Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour, Moacir Filho, and David Roubaud. 2018.
Industry 4.0 and the Circular Economy: A Proposed Research Agenda and Original Roadmap
for Sustainable Operations. Annals of Operations Research 270 (1–2): 273–286. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10479-018-2772-8.
Jørgensen, Sveinung, Lars Jacob, and Tynes Pedersen. 2018. Restart Sustainable Business Model
Innovation in Palgrave Studies in Sustainable Business In Association with Future Earth.
Springer International Publishing
Kok, J.N., E.J.W. Joost, W.A. Kosters Boers, P. Van der Putten, and M. Poel. 2009. Artificial
Intelligence: Definition, Trends, Techniques, and Cases, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems.
Kristensen, H.S., and A. Remmen. 2019. A Framework for Sustainable Value Proposition in
Product-Service Systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd 223: 25–35.
Kristoffersen, Eivind, Fenna Blomsma, Patrick Mikalef, and Jingyue Li. 2020. The Smart Circular
Economy: A Digital-Enabled Circular Strategies Framework for Manufacturing Companies.
Journal of Business Research 120 (November): 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2020.07.044.
Lacy, Peter, Jessica Long, and Wesley Spindler. 2020. The Circular Economy Handbook.
Washington, DC. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95968-6.
Lee, DonHee. 2018. Strategies for Technology-Driven Service Encounters for Patient Experience
Satisfaction in Hospitals. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 137 (December):
118–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.050.
Lewandowski, Mateusz. 2016. Designing the Business Models for Circular Economy—Towards
the Conceptual Framework. Sustainability. 8(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010043
Li, Ai Qiang, and Pauline Found. 2017. Towards Sustainability: PSS, Digital Technology
and Value Co-Creation. Procedia CIRP 64 (January): 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
PROCIR.2017.05.002.
Lieder, Michael, and Amir Rashid. 2016. Towards Circular Economy Implementation: A
Comprehensive Review in Context of Manufacturing Industry. Journal of Cleaner Production
115: 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042.
Lin, Kuo Yi. 2018. User Experience-Based Product Design for Smart Production to Empower
Industry 4.0 in the Glass Recycling Circular Economy. Computers and Industrial Engineering
125 (June): 729–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.06.023.
Linder, Marcus, and Mats Williander. 2017. Circular Business Model Innovation: Inherent
Uncertainties. Business Strategy and the Environment 26 (2): 182–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bse.1906.
Manzini, E., and C. Vezzoli. 2003. A Strategic Design Approach to Develop Sustainable Product
Service Systems: Examples Taken from the ‘Environmentally Friendly Innovation’ Italian Prize.
Journal of Cleaner Production 11: 851–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00153-1.
Melander, Lisa, and Ala Pazirandeh. 2019. Collaboration Beyond the Supply Network for Green
Innovation: Insight from 11 Cases. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
SCM-08-2018-0285. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-08-2018-0285.
Mishra, Jyoti L., Peter G. Hopkinson, and Gin Tidridge. 2018. Value Creation from Circular
Economy-Led Closed Loop Supply Chains: A Case Study of Fast-Moving Consumer Goods.
Production Planning and Control 29 (6): 509–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.201
8.1449245.
Mont, Oksana, Carl Dalhammar, and Nicholas Jacobsson. 2006. A New Business Model for Baby
Prams Based on Leasing and Product Remanufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production 14
(17): 1509–1518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.01.024.
Mühlroth, Christian, and Michael Grottke. 2020. Artificial Intelligence in Innovation: How to Spot
Emerging Trends and Technologies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 69(2):
1–18. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.2989214.
Nascimento, D.L.M., V. Alencastro, O.L.G. Quelhas, R.G.G. Caiado, J.A. Garza-Reyes, L.R. Lona,
and G. Tortorella. 2019. Exploring Industry 4.0 Technologies to Enable Circular Economy
Practices in a Manufacturing Context: A Business Model Proposal. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management 30 (3): 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-03-2018-0071.
Östlin, Johan, Erik Sundin, and Mats Björkman. 2009. Product Life-Cycle Implications for
Remanufacturing Strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (11): 999–1009. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2009.02.021.
Ramadoss, Tamil Selvan, Hilaal Alam, and Prof Ramakrishna Seeram. 2018. Artificial Intelligence
and Internet of Things Enabled Circular Economy. The International Journal of Engineering
and Science (IJES) 7: 55–63. https://doi.org/10.9790/1813-0709035563.
Ramani, Karthik, Devarajan Ramanujan, William Z. Bernstein, Fu Zhao, John Sutherland, Carol
Handwerker, Jun Ki Choi, Harrison Kim, and Deborah Thurston. 2010. Integrated Sustainable
Life Cycle Design: A Review. Journal of Mechanical Design, Transaction of the ASME 132
(9): 0910041–0910415. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4002308/476420.
Reim, Wiebke, Vinit Parida, and Daniel Örtqvist. 2015. Product-Service Systems (PSS) Business
Models and Tactics – A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Cleaner Production 97 (July
2014): 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.003.
Schenkel, Maren, Marjolein C.J. Caniëls, Harold Krikke, and Erwin Van Der Laan. 2015.
Understanding Value Creation in Closed Loop Supply Chains – Past Findings and Future
Directions. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 37: 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmsy.2015.04.009.
Schroeder, Patrick, Kartika Anggraeni, and Uwe Weber. 2019. The Relevance of Circular Economy
Practices to the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Industrial Ecology 23 (1): 77–95.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12732.
Smarter Sorting. 2021. Smarter Sorting. https://www.smartersorting.com/?hsLang=en.
Sitra. 2021. The Winning Recipe for a Circular Economy-What Can Inspiring Examples Show Us?
www.sitra.fi.
Smith, Mark, and Jo Crotty. 2008. Environmental Regulation and Innovation Driving Ecological
Design in the UK Automotive Industry. Business Strategy and the Environment 17 (6): 341–349.
https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.550.
Storbacka, Kaj, Roderick J. Brodie, Tilo Böhmann, Paul P. Maglio, and Suvi Nenonen. 2016. Actor
Engagement as a Microfoundation for Value Co-Creation. Journal of Business Research 69 (8):
3008–3017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.034.
Sundin, Erik, and Bert Bras. 2005. Making Functional Sales Environmentally and Economically
Beneficial Through Product Remanufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (9): 913–925.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2004.04.006.
Townsend, David M, and Richard A Hunt. 2019. Entrepreneurial Action, Creativity, & Judgment
in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2019.e00126.
Tukker, Arnold. 2015. Product Services for a Resource-Efficient and Circular Economy –
A Review. Journal of Cleaner Production 97: 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2013.11.049.
Ünal, Enes, Andrea Urbinati, and Davide Chiaroni. 2019. Managerial Practices for Designing
Circular Economy Business Models: The Case of an Italian SME in the Office Supply Industry.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 30 (3): 561–589. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JMTM-02-2018-0061.
United Nations. 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030Agenda for Sustainable
Development web.pdf.
Urbinati, Andrea, David Chiaroni, and Vittorio Chiesa. 2017. Towards a New Taxonomy of
Circular Economy Business Models. Journal of Cleaner Production 168: 487–498.
Van den Berg, M.R., and C.A. Bakker. 2015. A Product Design Framework for a Circular
Economy. PLATE (Product Lifetimes and the Environment) Conference Proceedings,
no. June: 365–379. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Giuseppe_Salvia/publica-
tion/303476076_Product_Lifetimes_And_The_Environment_Conference_Proceedings/
links/57447ba808aea45ee85306ca.pdf#page=373.
Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch. 2004. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing.
Journal of Marketing 68 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/JMKG.68.1.1.24036.
Waheed, M.F., and A.M. Khalid. 2019. Impact of Emerging Technologies for Sustainable
Fashion, Textile and Design. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 903. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-11051-2_104.
Whicher, Anna, Christopher Harris, Katie Beverley, and Piotr Swiatek. 2018. Design for Circular
Economy: Developing an Action Plan for Scotland. Journal of Cleaner Production 172
(December 2015): 3237–3248. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.009.
Yoo, Youngjin, Ola Henfridsson, and Kalle Lyytinen. 2010. The New Organizing Logic of Digital
Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research 21
(4): 724–735. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0322.
Computer-Aided Corporate Sense-Making
and Prioritization for SDGs
Innar Liiv, Erkki Karo, and Ralf-Martin Soe
Abstract It has become a recurring necessity and exercise for corporations to

assess the alignment of their corporate strategy and goals with UN Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs). Such an assessment is a highly complex task, full of
inconsistencies and subjective opinions of internal and external stakeholders, which
eventually influences the formal processes of strategy making and strategic choices.
This chapter presents a computer-aided method for corporate sense-making and
prioritization of SDGs, beyond the current state of the art SDG assessment tools and
methods. Novel technology and data analytics can be used for supporting the assess-
ment process and finding a consensus between different opinions. We present a
customized version of Thomas Saaty’s Analytical Hierarchy Process, which is cus-
tom tailored for SDG assessment to structure and organize the decision process and
find and eliminate inconsistencies of group decision-making. We present and sum-
marize the experiences and lessons learned from eight computer-aided corporate
SDG sense-making and prioritization exercises carried out in Estonia and Finland.
Keywords SDGs · Decision science · Impact assessment · Analytical

hierarchy process
I. Liiv (*)
School of Information Technology, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
E. Karo
Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology,
Tallinn, Estonia
R.-M. Soe
FinEst Centre for Smart Cities, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
366 I. Liiv et al.
1 Introduction
The SDGs (UN 2015) have effectively become a prominent and strategic umbrella
framework for multilateral organizations such as the UN and EU, and they have also
been increasingly adopted by the public sector organizations on the national and
local levels. Furthermore, there tends to be a cumulative acceptance among the
research community – the usage of the keyword “SDG” has increased ninefold in
2020 vs. 2015 in both Web of Science and Scopus. The SDGs also are commonly
used within the third sector, especially in the context of climate change. Therefore,
the global strategic orientation toward SDGs has become widespread in govern-
ment, academia, and civil society. However, the fourth Q in the quadruple helix
model, the industry, has been, for a long time, more conservative, or sidelined, in
adapting to novel SDG-driven business models. This has been especially the case of
investment-heavy and overregulated sectors such as energy and banking, although
both sectors have been quickly catching up. Therefore, this chapter is mainly inter-
ested in how SDGs are reasoned and accepted within the corporate sector and how
technology and algorithms can support in the corporate sense-making and prioriti-
zation process for SDGs. Algorithms, in this case, do not act or recommend inde-
pendently but support, empower, and amplify cognitive processes of participants.
Our approach for using algorithms for achieving SDGs is not operating on a typical
macro or supermacro level but on a micro level ready to be used directly by
corporations.
The main contribution of this chapter is to present a complex set of decision sci-
ence methods to help the impact assessment and prioritization process for SDGs,
consisting of a customized version of Thomas Saaty’s Analytical Hierarchy Process
(Wind and Saaty 1980; Saaty 1988, 2008), automatic consistency measurement of
answers, Kemeny-Snell distance measurement between corporate strategy and cho-
sen initiatives, and its visualization with multidimensional scaling.
In addition to presenting the proposed methodology, we validate and summarize
the experiences and lessons learned from eight computer-aided corporate SDG
sense-making and prioritization exercises carried out in Estonia and Finland. In
addition, after the carrying out of the exercise, we asked participants to reflect upon
the experiences and the potential value of the tool for corporate strategic planning
and management.
2 Motivation
Corporations in general and SMEs in particular are considered as dynamic agents of

modern economies: most new ideas are tested and most new jobs are created in
SMEs. Hence, SMEs can also play a crucial role as dynamic change agents in the
Computer-Aided Corporate Sense-Making and Prioritization for SDGs 367
process of achieving Sustainable Development Goals, serving as a test bed for new
ideas and launchpad for new industries and specializations. From a strategic man-
agement perspective, this requires a more systematic understanding of how specific
companies can contribute to SDGs and aligning their business practices and strate-
gies with SDGs. For many younger and smaller companies, making sense and navi-
gating the complex and often bureaucratic landscape of SDGs may be a significant
challenge. Yet, it has been also established that the new generations (generation Z
and beyond) entering the labor force are requiring potential employers to provide a
bigger and societally relevant mission or purpose for the organization (Mawhinney
and Betts 2020).
It has been estimated that SDGs are a 12 trillion USD market opportunity (UN
2019) and indeed most policy initiatives (e.g., European Green Deal (EC 2019a))
predominantly focus on “crowding-in” private sector investments for tackling some
of the biggest societal challenges. In the context of the EU, the new EU taxonomy
or sustainable activities (EC 2019b) are a prime example of such initiative and
attempt to use financial and banking regulations to speed up these processes of
crowding in. Such combined effect of policy initiatives combined with financial
instruments is likely to both create new market opportunities and steer both large
and small firms toward common direction (Mazzucato 2016).
Most prioritization in organizations traditionally depends on some forms of
authority, i.e., priorities and directions are set by owners of firms, by the managers
who represent classic rational merit-based authority, or in rare cases by the charis-
matic leaders within and outside organizations that provide new paths and dynamics
for development (Weber 1978). We argue that the use of the computer-aided models
allows, especially in organizations with a significant variety of staff and strategic
development capacity, for a parallel and less power-based prioritization process out-
side the traditional corporate strategic and decision-making routines. The processes
can be structured and moderated outside these power dynamics, and these can
enable (assuming that the models are neutral enough, which is almost never the
case) much stronger bottom-up co-creation and co-discovery of priorities and direc-
tions that make sense for the entirety of the organization (as opposed to the narrow
lenses of the power/authority holders).
Timo Honkela in his recent book (Honkela 2017) presented an interesting idea
that artificial intelligence can help tackle and minimize not just misinformation but
miscommunication as well. Although computer scientists are often reluctant to call
any computer-aided or algorithmic automation as “artificial intelligence,” it is
worthwhile to consider the search of potential usage of “artificial intelligence (AI)
to support and advance the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)”
(Oxford Initiative on AIxSDGs 2020) from the aspect of mitigating miscommunica-
tion as well. This chapter argues that algorithms can support the process of aligning
the corporate strategy and different initiatives to SDGs and prioritizing them.
Therefore, there is strong motivation to develop computer-aided methods and tools
for corporate sense-making and prioritization for SDGs.
368 I. Liiv et al.
The United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative considers the

first step toward responsible banking to be the alignment of the “business strategy to
be consistent with and contribute to individuals’ needs and society’s goals, as
expressed in the Sustainable Development Goals” (UNEP 2019). The principles for
responsible banking are focused on a specific sector, but clearly such an alignment
is an essential step in any business sector. However, the market lacks tools to sup-
port the process of alignment and prioritization.
A notable exception in this market is the SDG Impact Assessment Tool by the
Gothenburg Center (see Fig. 1), which supports and approaches the impact assess-
ment in three steps: (a) sorting the SDGs according to the relevance (relevant, not
relevant, I don’t know; latter choice empowering and emphasizing the learning
aspect of impact assessment tools) (b) assessing the kind of impact of each SDG
(direct positive, indirect positive, no impact, indirect negative, direct negative) (c)
after the assessment of each relevant SDG, reflecting on the strategic choices for
prioritizing actions ahead.
However, finding just the list of relevant SDGs is not enough for resource alloca-
tion planning, especially in the context of budget restrictions. Therefore, the priori-
tization of SDGs is important as well as finding numeric proportions to respective
priorities. Developing a methodology to fulfill exactly those requirements validat-
ing such an approach with actual corporations is the focus and main contribution of
this chapter. Novel technology and data analytics can be used for supporting the
assessment process and finding a consensus between different opinions.
Fig. 1 SDG impact assessment tool by the Gothenburg Center

3 Proposed Methodology
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a complex decision analysis methodology

for structuring, measurement, and synthesis (Forman and Gass 2001). It was origi-
nally developed by Thomas L. Saaty as “a way to determine which objective out-
weighs another, both in near and long terms” (Saaty 1994). The core of the
methodology is to elicit judgments that reflect knowledge, feelings, or emotions and
to represent those with meaningful and comparable numbers to calculate the priori-
ties of the elements (Saaty 1994). A typical hierarchy for AHP has three levels
(Saaty 1988, 2000, 2001, 2008): a goal, alternative solutions, and criteria for evalu-
ating those alternatives. In our context, we will use a two-level hierarchy: corporate
strategy and (selected subset of) Sustainable Development Goals. In addition to the
impact assessment of the corporate strategy, we will use additional independent
two-level hierarchies for the impact assessment of individual initiatives and projects
that are considered useful or necessary by the company itself on the path toward the
overall mission or purpose. In those eight computer-aided corporate SDG sense-
making and prioritization exercises carried out in Estonia and Finland, the setup of
corporate strategy plus two initiatives was used. In theory, more initiatives could be
analyzed, but the rationale was to minimize respondent burden and response fatigue
(Sinickas 2007).
The main goal of those experimental impact assessments was to validate the
methodology and get feedback about future enhancements for the approach. A step-
by-step description of the methodology, together with example data, will be pre-
sented in this section, without analyzing any one specific participant of the study.
In line with the first step of AHP general surveying procedure, we asked partici-
pants to conduct pairwise comparisons between SDGs according to their impor-
tance for their corporate strategy and two initiatives based on their preference and
relevance for the context of the exercise. This introduced the first challenge, since
for 17 Sustainable Development Goals, there would be (17 · 16)/2 = 136 different
pairwise comparisons. It is not realistic to ask a senior leader in the company to give
such a number of individual judgments and opinions. Based on Miller’s classical
theory on the limits on people’s capacity for processing information (Miller 1956),
we were looking for a subset of 7+-2 SDGs to be considered more thoroughly.
However, the exact number and the way of selecting a smaller number of relevant
SDGs were left for the company to decide.
Regardless of the final approach chosen by the company for reducing the number
of (more) relevant Sustainable Development Goals to be prioritized, finding such a
subset was the (1) step as shown on Fig. 2. In this example, five SDGs (5, 8, 9, 13,
16) were chosen out of 17.
The (2) step was to conduct pairwise comparisons between SDGs according to
their importance (see Fig. 3): first, for their corporate strategy and, second, for two
initiatives based on their preference and relevance for the context of the exercise. In
the case of assessing the corporate strategy, the following question was posed:
Which of those two SDGs will the corporate strategy contribute more or have more
370 I. Liiv et al.
Fig. 2 First step was to reduce the number of SDGs to be prioritized
impact? All pairwise assessments are to be given using the Saaty rating scale pre-
sented in Table 1.
The data, recording the judgments that reflect respondents’ knowledge, feelings,
or emotions about the object currently assessed, can be structured as presented in
Table 2. In case of assessing the corporate strategy and two initiatives, there will be
three independent data tables like that. In case the judgments are not given as a
group choice, similar data tables can be stored for multiple respondents to further
analyze the difference of preferences and priorities.
After the pairwise comparison and data collection, the data processing, visual-
ization, and analysis phase started. The preferences in Table 2 are converted to a
matrix format (Table 3), compatible for calculations for any software package,
which implements the Analytical Hierarchy Process (e.g., R software (Cho 2019),
Excel, or other spreadsheet software (Goepel 2018)). The rightmost column in
Table 3 indicates the numeric priority of the specific SDG, based on pairwise
judgments.
Several features of the Analytic Hierarchy Process can have a meaningful inter-
pretation in this use case. For example, it is possible to calculate a consistency ratio
of the judgments (11.1% in the case of this example), which indicates whether pair-
wise judgments are consistent with each other and even can give feedback on a
specific judgment which might have been assessed/entered incorrectly or already
while having a response fatigue. It has been discussed over the years (Wind and
Fig. 3 Pairwise comparisons of five SDGs
Saaty 1980; Saaty 1988, 2008) that even if the indicative consistency threshold to be
considered satisfactory is 10%, it very much depends on the specific domain and is
occasionally (pragmatically) considered to be reasonably consistent with the con-
sistency ratio 20%.
The results of prioritization and ranking of SDGs can be visualized as a simple
visualization of the results of prioritization and ranking of SDGs (see Fig. 4) that
makes the motivation of numeric measurements of priorities and the resulting rank-
ing evident. Instead of just listing a number of SDGs in corporate documents, it now
enables group discussions on a more structural basis and allows the measurement of
372 I. Liiv et al.
Table 1 Saaty rating scale for pairwise comparisons

Rating
scale Definition
1 Importance/contribution to both goals is equal
3 Experience and judgment slightly considers the importance/contribution to one goal
to be more relevant
5 Experience and judgment strongly considers the importance/contribution to one
goal to be more relevant
7 Importance/contribution favors very strongly one goal over another (clear
demonstration of dominance)
9 The evidence favoring one goal over another is of the highest possible order or
certainty
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values between two adjacent judgments
Table 2 The result of pairwise comparisons

Choice 1 Choice 2 More impact? Scale
SDG5 SDG8 SDG8 5
SDG5 SDG9 SDG9 5
SDG5 SDG13 SDG13 3
SDG5 SDG16 SDG5 3
SDG8 SDG9 SDG9 3
SDG8 SDG13 SDG8 5
SDG8 SDG16 SDG8 5
SDG9 SDG13 SDG9 5
SDG9 SDG16 SDG9 5
SDG13 SDG16 SDG13 3
expected and actual budget resource allocations (e.g., are the proportions correct,
and if not, is it possible to backtrack to specific pairwise judgment of preference/
importance?).
Since we are dealing with prioritizations, preferences, and rankings, in order to
analyze and visualize the similarity between either the corporate strategy and initia-
tives or consensus among respondents, instead of classical data science similarity
measures (e.g., Euclidean distance, Hamming distance), Kemeny-Snell distance can
be used to compute the distance between two rankings (Kemeny and Snell 1962;
Luo et al. 2002).
If there are many objects analyzed or multiple respondents, Kemeny-Snell dis-
tance can give an analyst additional insights about how far each prioritization is
from every other recorded prioritization and even to calculate a median ranking or a
consensus ranking which ought to summarize or aggregate all other rankings into
one being mathematically most similar to all other opinions. An example of visual-
izing the Kemeny-Snell distance between the corporate strategy and two initiatives
using multidimensional scaling (Torgerson 1952; Kruskal 1978; Cox and Cox 2008)
is presented on Fig. 5. It is possible to see from this example which initiative is
Table 3 Results of pairwise comparisons in a matrix format and SDG priorities as a result of AHP
calculation
Normalized principal
SDG5 SDG8 SDG9 SDG13 SDG16 Eigenvector
SDG5 1 1/5 1/5 1/3 3 7.44%
SDG8 5 1 1/3 5 5 29.87%
SDG9 5 3 1 5 5 46.35%
SDG13 3 1/5 1/5 1 3 11.55%
SDG16 1/3 1/5 1/5 1/3 1 4.80%
Fig. 4 Prioritization and ranking of SDGs
closer to the corporate strategy and plot all prioritization on one figure to better
understand patterns in individual priorities and judgments.
4 Lessons Learned
The proposed methodology was tested with eight corporate SDG sense-making and
prioritization projects in order to validate and learn from the process. The focus of
this chapter is not to present specific SDGs those companies prioritized but to the-
matically summarize main lessons learned from the process. Recurring themes and
challenges for future methodological enhancement are grouped into following
subtopics.
374 I. Liiv et al.
Fig. 5 Similarity of priorities between the corporate strategy and two initiatives
4.1 Minimizing Respondent Burden
As discussed in the previous section, using the proposed methodology on all 17

SDGs would be unrealistic because it would require conducting 136 different pair-
wise comparisons to cover all of SDGs and 408 pairwise comparisons to assess the
corporate strategy and, additionally, two initiatives.
The exact number and the way of selecting a smaller number of relevant SDGs
were left for the company to decide. Solutions typically belonged to either of the
following three heuristics: (a) to organize an additional poll within the organization
to identify (rank) relevant SDGs, (b) to choose the ones already identified earlier in
strategy documents as a seed list and potentially add a few based on discussions,
and (c) to identify a relevant subset on-site during the interview. However, this could
potentially be another place where algorithms could be used to enhance the method-
ology to support the process even further. The hypothesis would be that if algo-
rithms are able to detect inconsistencies in the judgments using AHP, there must be
some redundancy, which could be leveraged and optimized by algorithms.
It could be an interesting avenue of research for the future to explore the concep-
tualization and algorithmic operationalization of saturation (Saunders et al. 2018)
for AHP pairwise judgments and how it could be implemented in practice. According
to human intuition during the prioritization exercises, the “underlying opinion”
behind pairwise comparisons became evident already before half of the pairwise
comparisons were completed. If algorithms could help to optimize and predict the
minimum necessary number of pairwise comparisons to be done, it may be possible
to eliminate the preliminary step to reduce the number of SDGs for only a subset of
most relevant, without (proportionally) increasing the respondent burden.
4.2 Assessments About the Present or the Future?
Whether the impact should be about the present (AS-IS) or the future (TO-BE) was
a recurring emerging discussion with most companies. This situation was not
because of the lack of clarity in the survey design but is a deeper challenge and
discussion for strategic planning in general.
The focus on climate change, climate neutrality, and similar grant societal chal-
lenges has brought about a crucial change in modern strategic planning: the estab-
lishment and articulation of long-term plans (i.e., “net zero by 2050” or similar).
This shift away from focusing only on short-term goals (quarterly and annual KPIs)
has severe implications on adequate models for both public and private sector stra-
tegic planning. While in the initial stage, most organizations are likely to try to
match current activities and processes with the tasks needed to achieve these long-
term ambitions (we can call this incremental SDG strategy), over time, it is likely
that most organization will realize that achieving such large scale socio-economic
or even firm level ambitions required much more transformative and scenario-based
approaches to aligning core organization processes and larger ambitions (we can
call this transformative SDG strategy).
4.3 Why Are the Company Strategy and Initiative Impact

Assessments (So) Different?
Another recurring theme over most impact assessments was the interplay between
corporate strategy impact assessment versus initiatives’ impact assessments.
Initiatives support the general corporate strategy, but it is not unusual for specific
corporate initiatives to not to have a matching prioritization of SDGs to the corpo-
rate strategy. Similarly, for initiatives several additional SDGs can be relevant and
some from the corporate strategy not relevant at all.
Given the long-term view necessary for aligning corporate strategies and actions
with SDGs and other grand societal challenges and movements (e.g., climate neu-
trality), one can expect that the overall strategic planning and thinking become more
mission-oriented or purpose-driven based on agreeing to the “big” ambitious goals
while also allowing for much more uncertainty and agility in the actual daily actions
toward these goals. This by necessity entails providing much more autonomy and
freedom within organizations for defining and managing through individual initia-
tives and projects that are considered useful or necessary on the path toward the
overall mission or purpose.
376 I. Liiv et al.
4.4 The Kind and Direction of the SDG Impact
It cannot be assumed that corporate strategies and initiatives contribute to the SDGs
in a linear or unidirectional way. Furthermore, the effect can also be negative. In
retrospect, the research design choice proposed by the SDG Impact Assessment
Tool by the Gothenburg Center to categorize the kind of the SDG impact into classes
(e.g., direct positive, indirect positive, no impact, indirect negative, direct negative)
is very relevant, since most of the companies in this study were struggling with
whether to only consider positive or also negative impact.
For example, if a solution or an initiative is applied in a city to assist in finding
free parking spaces as smoothly as possible, this can increase the number of people
interested in driving a car into the city center, instead of using public transport or
nonmotorized traffic. Continuing with mobility, it can also be argued that automated
vehicles can have negative effect on some SDGs, such as strengthening efforts to
protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage as fully automated
transport requires reconstruction of urban environments. However, in most cases,
this comes down to the implementation process, whereas different solutions and
initiatives can have both negative and positive effects. For example, if fully auto-
mated urban transport is applied, dependent on the design and implementation,
meeting some SDGs (e.g., by 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and
accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older
persons, and persons with disabilities) can range from positive effects (with smaller
number of cars in cities and also parking lots, the access to green and public spaces
is enhanced) to negative effects (reconstructing the cities could also limit this
access).
4.5 The Ethics of Computer-Aided Minimization

of Miscommunications
The most prominent discussions in the context of ethics and algorithms are related
to algorithmic bias, manipulating public opinion and making fair automatic deci-
sions about the individuals. The methods presented in this chapter present addi-
tional and completely unique ethical challenges, previously unmet with algorithmic
decision-making and recommendation systems. If the goal is to minimize miscom-
munication and alignment between the preferences and opinions of participants,
trusting the algorithm not to manipulate or bias the opinion to one direction or the
other is fundamental for acceptance of the tool. This, as well, could be an interesting
avenue of research for the future to understand better how respondents feel about an
algorithm highlighting an inconsistency in their judgment and asking to go back and
alter a choice. Even if the participant understands how the method works, they tend
to feel uncomfortable if an algorithm identifies an inconsistency in their judgments,
preferences, and opinions.
4.6 Role Conflicts of Respondents
While, conceptually, the computer-aided models may help to deliver more bottom-
up priority setting and aligning of organizational goals, one should always keep in
mind that the supportive interview method still includes its traditional limitations,
i.e., bias and role conflicts of respondents (are they responding as experts, individu-
als, or representatives of the team/organization?) and their interest to “game” the
methods and bring the power dynamics back in (i.e., responding based on the
power-based organizational agenda). This makes it necessary to combine the meth-
odological approaches of both data sciences and social sciences and compile joint
protocols to mitigate each other’s methodological weaknesses.
5 Conclusion
This chapter presented a technology-based, structured, and moderated tool for cor-
porate sense-making and prioritization for SDGs. We presented and summarized the
experiences and lessons learned from eight computer-aided corporate SDG sense-
making and prioritization exercises carried out in Estonia and Finland.
The experiences showed that the proposed process supports better SDG-related
internal communication, sense-making, ideation, and finding new business opportu-
nities and more efficient solutions for the goals seen as a priority by the company.
In fact, the use of the computer-aided models allows for a parallel and less power-
based prioritization process outside the traditional corporate strategic and decision-
making routines. Hence, it allows deep analysis and discovery of different sets of
SDG-related priorities and also analysis of alignment between formal strategic
goals vs subsidiary project goals in the context of SDGs.
References
Cho, Frankie. 2019. Analytic Hierarchy Process for Survey Data in R. Vignettes Ahpsurvey
Package (ver 0.4. 0) 26.
Cox, Michael A.A., and Trevor F. Cox. 2008. Multidimensional Scaling. In Handbook of Data
Visualization, 315–347. Berlin: Springer.
EC. 2019a. A European Green Deal: Striving to Be the First Climate-Neutral Continent. https://
ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europeangreen-dealen.
———. 2019b. EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities: What the EU Is Doing to Create
an EU-Wide Classification System for Sustainable Activities. https://ec.europa.eu/info/
business-economy-euro/banking-and-finance/sustain able-finance/eu-taxonomy-sustainable-
activities en.
Forman, Ernest H., and Saul I. Gass. 2001. The Analytic Hierarchy Process—An Exposition.
Operations Research 49 (4): 469–486.
378 I. Liiv et al.
Goepel, Klaus D. 2018. AHP Excel Template with Multiple Inputs. Singapore: Business
Performance Management Singapore (BPMSG).
Honkela, Timo. 2017. Rauhankone: teko¨alytutkijan testamentti. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
Kemeny, John G., and L.J. Snell. 1962. Preference Ranking: An Axiomatic Approach. In
Mathematical Models in the Social Sciences, 9–23. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kruskal, Joseph B. 1978. Multidimensional Scaling. Vol. 11. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Luo, Jiebo, Stephen P. Etz, Robert T. Gray, and Amit Singhal. 2002. Normalized Kemeny and Snell
Distance: A Novel Metric for Quantitative Evaluation of Rank-Order Similarity of Images.
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 24 (8): 1147–1151.
Mawhinney, T., and K. Betts. 2020. Understanding Generation Z in the Workplace. Deloitte
Insights 24: 1–24.
Mazzucato, Mariana. 2016. From Market Fixing to Market-Creating: A New Framework for
Innovation Policy. Industry and Innovation 23 (2): 140–156.
Miller, George A. 1956. The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our
Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review 63 (2): 81.
Oxford Initiative on AIxSDGs. 2020. https://www.aiforsdgs.org/.
Saaty, Thomas L. 1988. What Is the Analytic Hierarchy Process? In Mathematical Models for
Decision Support, 109–121. Berlin: Springer.
———. 1994. How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Interfaces 24 (6): 19–43.
———. 2000. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy
Process. Vol. 6. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
———. 2001. Fundamentals of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. In The Analytic Hierarchy Process
in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making, 15–35. Dordrecht: Springer.
———. 2008. Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of
Services Sciences 1 (1): 83–98.
Saunders, Benjamin, Julius Sim, Tom Kingstone, Shula Baker, Jackie Waterfield, Bernadette
Bartlam, Heather Burroughs, and Clare Jinks. 2018. Saturation in Qualitative Research:
Exploring Its Conceptualization and Operationalization. Quality & Quantity 52 (4): 1893–1907.
Sinickas, Angela. 2007. Finding a Cure for Survey Fatigue. Strategic Communication Management
11 (2): 11.
Torgerson, Warren S. 1952. Multidimensional Scaling: I. Theory and Method. Psychometrika 17
(4): 401–419.
UN. 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Resolution
Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015). https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.
———. 2019. UN Secretary-General’s Strategy for Financing the 2030 Agenda. https://www.
un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sg-finance-strategy/.
UNEP. 2019. United Nations Environment Programme – Finance Initiative. https://sdgs.
un.org/2030agenda.
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Vol. 1. Berkeley:
University of California Press
Wind, Yoram, and Thomas L. Saaty. 1980. Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy
Process. Management Science 26 (7): 641–658.
Role of Artificial Intelligence in Advancing
Sustainable Development Goals
in the Agriculture Sector
Soenke Ziesche, Swati Agarwal, Uday Nagaraju, Edson Prestes,

and Naman Singha
Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) is the algorithms designed to make decisions,

often using big real-time data to perform activities that at times go beyond human
capabilities. Given the increasing gap in agricultural demand and supply worldwide,
further widened by the COVID-19 pandemic (The pandemic has derailed the prog-
ress towards Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) further off the track. The SDG
financing gap per annum widened from USD 2.5 trillion to around USD 4.2 tril-
lion), it necessitates innovative and cost-effective approaches to agriculture. AI has
begun producing innovative technological solutions and data-driven insights to
farming which gives confidence that it can be used to mitigate challenges around
sustainable agricultural practices and facilitate getting SDGs back on track. In agri-
culture, AI has demonstrated immense potential in achieving enhanced productivity
This chapter submitted and contributed by AI Policy Labs, UK.
S. Ziesche
AI Policy Labs, London, UK
Fellow, AI Policy Labs, Delhi, India
S. Agarwal
Former Head of Research and Partnerships, AI Policy Labs, New Delhi, India
U. Nagaraju (*)
Founder, AI Policy Labs, London, UK
E. Prestes
Advisor, AI Policy Labs & Informatics Institute, Federal University of Rio Grande do Su,
Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
N. Singha
Researcher, AI Policy Labs, Greater Noida, India
380 S. Ziesche et al.
and improving the existing supply chains, delivery systems and market value/better
pricing in both developed and developing countries for better utilisation of the
produce.
Several innovative uses of AI in agriculture have emerged worldwide, promising
to advance farm productivity while improving sustainability and livelihoods at the
same time. However, many of these experiments/pilots exist in silos. Due to this
fragmented approach, a comprehensive understanding of how successful the use of
AI has been in agriculture and what shortcomings or challenges were faced in some
of these technological implementations has not been well evaluated. This chapter,
therefore, assesses the pressing reasons to use innovative and cost-effective digital
interventions like AI for SDGs in the agriculture sector. The paper then identifies the
challenges in designing a successful AI programme and explores the potential of
multi-stakeholder partnerships in this context.
Keywords Innovation · Food productivity · Sustainability · SDG 2 · Artificial

intelligence · Agriculture
1 The Ever-Growing Hunger
Over the past few decades, the agricultural sector has advanced considerably. Owing
to the phenomenal success of the Green Revolution in increasing agricultural pro-
ductivity, given the combined use of high yield variety seeds, higher irrigation and
advanced machinery (agricultural production tripled between 1960 and 2015 (FAO
2017)), the world was able to avoid the grim Malthusian prediction.1 Though the
success of the Green Revolution helped many nations avoid severe famines and
widespread hunger, the transition of humanity to the twenty-first century brought to
the fore the fallouts of the revolution, and it became clear that ‘business as usual’
was no longer a feasible approach.
The extensive and high-handed use of inputs (chemical fertilisers, water, elec-
tricity, machines, etc.) not only depleted natural resources like forest, land and soil
but also significantly destroyed biodiversity of the region, accelerating the prospects
of natural disasters. This led to increased vulnerability of the agricultural sector
with unreliable productivity and output. On the other hand, agricultural sector
became a major contributor to climate change and global warming, as it emitted
tonnes of greenhouse gases. The overreliance on cereals (mainly rice) led to micro-
nutrient deficiencies amongst a large chunk of the population, and thus the con-
sumer demand today is placing reliance on diversification with increasing demands
1
In the 1950s it was predicted that a severe food shortage might occur in South Asia whereby popu-
lation growth would exceed the rate of increase in food production, leading to catastrophic
consequences.
Role of Artificial Intelligence in Advancing Sustainable Development Goals… 381
for products like dairy, fruits, vegetables and plant and animal-based protein. As
more and more people worldwide make the transition towards an urban life (by
2050, two-third of the population will live in cities, (FAO 2017)) it will only signifi-
cantly accelerate the shift in this consumption pattern. The demand for organically
and chemical-free produced food with adequate quality and standard checks will
continue to gain pace.
In addition, as the world population continues to grow at a rapid pace (projected
to peak at 11 billion by 2100 (FAO 2017)) and hunger and malnutrition continues to
remain a prominent challenge, particularly in regions like sub-Saharan Africa and
South Asia, the supply-side will have to address the twin challenge of sufficient as
well as sustainable production. In this regard, the adoption of a ‘holistic’ approach,
which integrates sustainable, climate-resilient, environment-friendly and innovative
agricultural practices, has become imperative and unavoidable.
The recent breakout of the COVID-19 pandemic that engulfed the entire world in
2020 also lay bare one of the major issues associated with the current globalised
food system, that is, the risks associated with long food chains and the potential of
the spread of transboundary pests, virus and diseases. This underlines that, in addi-
tion to climate-smart and conservation-based agriculture practices, future food sys-
tems will also have to place considerable emphasis on traditional and local best
practices.
2 Looking Towards AI to Solve Agricultural Problems
To address the issues of food insecurity, agricultural productivity and higher yields
for the coming future, the role of technological interventions have become indis-
pensable. The multitude of interconnected challenges such as scarce and stressed
resources (land, water, soil, etc.), fluctuating outputs and increasing demands,
changing weather and rainfall patterns and environmental pollution on top of a bur-
geoning population have all necessitated innovative measures to facilitate adapt-
ability in accordance with the changing ecological and agricultural landscape.
‘Smart agriculture’, that is, the integration of disruptive technologies like the
Internet of Things (IoT), AI, robots, drones, etc., in agricultural production and
management, promises to close the supply-demand gap and optimise the natural and
human resources for maximum and quality output. As noted by Khandelwal (2019),
‘farming solutions which are AI-powered enable a farmer to do more with less,
enhancing the quality, and simultaneously also ensuring a quick go-to-market strat-
egy for crops’.
To explain the process, the IoT connects devices (like actuators, sensors, drones,
geographic information systems (GIS), etc.) via Internet communication services to
a common platform to collect and transmit data about key field parameters like
temperature, humidity, soil, etc. With the help of AI technologies, data retrieved
from the fields are processed and worked upon to generate the relevant insights and
guide the future decision-making process regarding crop needs, field efficiency,
productivity and improving financial metrics of managing farms.
A simple representation of the process is shown in the figure below.
Source: Veronica Rubio and Francisco Mas (2020)
Agriculture is one sector, which is riddled with natural uncertainties and risks
and requires constant monitoring, control and manual labour to derive the best
results. This is exactly the gap that digital farming promises to fill, as armed with the
strength of sophisticated technology (sensors, IoT applications, big data, decision-
making and data processing prowess of AI systems). Farmers can monitor their
farms in real time, quickly and more efficiently, to provide the best conditions and
inputs and, in turn, simultaneously maximise the conditions for a good harvest.
Thus, where traditional farming decisions were taken based on subjective judge-
ment and knowledge, the modern farming practices will allow the farmers to make
objective decisions based on quantifiable data.
In short, integrating digital technologies into the ‘farms of future’ will free up a
major chunk of time that is currently spent in manual, laborious and repetitive work
towards making strategic choices and decisions about how to optimise the resources
at hand and produce better results.
Rubio and Mas (2019) state that farms that are technology-driven are able to
generate co-benefits in the form of increased production and reduction of costs with
minimal effort.
The major opportunity areas, where the assimilation of emerging technologies
will impact the agriculture sector, includes promotion of intelligent crop planning
through extension of knowledge and advisories regarding credit, inputs, suitable
crops, etc.; smart farming through farm mechanisation, predictive analysis of suit-
able resources, nutrients needed and threats like pests, weeds and diseases that can
potentially threaten yields and harvest; and farmgate to fork business solutions by
enhancing market intelligence and addressing the quality, traceability and logistics
issues (WEF 2021).
As agriculture has become nonremunerative and more and more communities
shift towards an urban life leaving behind the rural space, there is an expected
shortage of labour. The adoption of robotic technology in agriculture is thus indis-

pensable, as robots will supplant humans to do manual work for longer hours and
with more precision. While the agricultural sector is still at a nascent stage, when it
comes to adopting AI solutions, data-driven agriculture combined with machine
learning solutions, autonomous machines and farm robots is believed to be the
future of precision and sustainable agriculture.
3 Overview of Data Sources That Are Being Collected Across

the Agricultural Chain
The AI revolution in agriculture has initiated a shift in the whole agricultural food
chain from the fields to harvesting and even transportation.
AI and other emerging technologies (including blockchain) are currently being
used in all four main clusters of agriculture: preproduction, production, processing
and distribution (Ben Ayed and Hanana 2021). The below table lists out the varied
data that is currently being collected and processed by IoT along the agricultural
chain and their areas of practical application.
This table also highlights the potential SDG targets that might be impacted as a
result of AI interventions in the various agricultural stages, thereby strengthening
the case for AI to be designed more holistically.
IoT and AI
S. applications in SDG
no agriculture Data collected Application area target
Preproduction stage
(a) Plant structure and Plant Phenotyping measures Determining suitable Target
properties complex traits of plants like plants types for a 2.3,
growth, tolerance, resistance, particular environment 12.2,
physiology, etc. in a particular 12.4
temporal and spatial
environment
(b) Soil monitoring Soil sampling and mapping Determine soil properties, Target
through remote-sensing texture, water-holding 2.4, 1.4
satellites, drones, etc. and absorption potential
to minimise erosion,
acidification and pollution
(c) Humidity monitoring Air and soil moisture Estimate water demand of Target
measurement crops to select appropriate 2.4,
irrigation method 6.4, 1.4
(d) Greenhouse gases Measuring parameters like For greenhouse and Target
and temperature shed structure, ventilation vertical farming, detailed 2.4,
monitoring system, humidity, light, and accurate monitoring 12.8
pressure, temperature and of these parameters is
CO2 in environment needed
(continued)
IoT and AI
S. applications in SDG
no agriculture Data collected Application area target
(e) Fertilisation Measuring soil and crop- Achieve precision Target
application specific nutrient needs fertilisation and reduce 2.4,
excessive application 14.1
Production stage
(f) Disease monitoring Monitoring crop-foliar status Effective health Target
by infrared light sensors to assessment and 2.4, 1.5
check against crop disease management to control
and pests spread disease spread
(g) Crop and plant Yield monitoring to anticipate Forecasting harvest is Target
growth monitoring the quantity and quality essential for future 2.3, 2.a,
through multispectral (moisture content, grain flow, decision-making by 12.2
sensor, camera and colour, size, etc.) of harvest farmers
softwares
(h) Weather prediction Sunlight, rainfall, humidity Forecasting weather Target
and so on patterns important for 2.4, 1.5
crop growth
(i) Farm machinery Accelerometer sensors can Tracking machinery helps Target
tracking detect variations in the in eliminating 2.a,
movement of machinery like unnecessary routes, 12.A
tractors, drones, etc. alerting when farm
machinery maintenance is
due
(j) Location tracking of Monitoring location, health, Health updates about Target
animals regular activities and feeding livestock can prevent the 2.5,
schedule of cattle spread of diseases 1.4,
12. A
Processing
(k) Harvest monitoring Collection of precise and Automated harvesting by Target
unambiguous information robots to reduce labour 2.4,
about particular crops in pressure and costs 12.3
terms of their shape, size and
colour by sophisticated
sensors
Picture evidence to detect Improving crop insurance Target
crop failures system 12.4
Distribution
(l) Food storage and Measuring and monitoring Ensure longer-shelf life Target
supply food temperature, quality by during transportation and 12.3,
wireless sensors reduce food waste 2.c,
12.A
(m) Consumer analytics Predicting consumer demand, Completes the feedback Target
preferences, behaviour loop helping farmers 12.A,
pattern, etc. grow according to the 1.A,
demand 1.B
(n) Inventory Tracking the supplies and Helps in improving Target
management delivery logistics of food supply 2.c
Sources: Ayaz et al. (2019) and Ben Ayed and Hanana (2021)
According to the study compiled by Farooq et al. (2020), the percentage of the
research articles published on IoT solutions in agriculture is mostly in the following
application areas, respectively: irrigation monitoring and control, precision farm-
ing, soil monitoring, temperature monitoring, animal monitoring and tracking
and so on.
In order to evaluate the extent of possible impact AI development within the
agriculture sector can have on promoting SDGs, we comprehensively evaluated the
SDG targets and indicators linked to agriculture across its supply chain. While some
of these have been covered in the existing practices discussed above, many other
interlinkages between agriculture and other SDG targets have not been initiated yet.
This gives us a glimpse of the extent of future possibilities to be explored with the
intervention of AI in the agriculture sector.
SDG #2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable
agriculture
SDG targets Description Issues Addressed Indicators
Target 2.1 End Hunger by 2030 and Hunger; food accessibility 2 indicators
ensure accessibility of safe, and utilisation; – Undernourishment
nutritious and sufficient undernourishment – Food insecurity
food by all people, experience scale
particularly the poor,
infants and vulnerable
Target 2.2 End all forms of Stunting (low height for age) 3 indicators
malnutrition by 2030, and and wasting (low weight for – Stunting
achieve international height) in children below – Malnutrition
targets on stunting and 5 years; anaemia in women; – Anaemia in women
wasting of children below malnutrition of future aged 15 to 49
5 years by 2025. Also, generations
address nutritional needs
of adolescent girls,
pregnant and lactating
women
Target 2.3 Double agricultural Agricultural and labour 2 indicators
productivity and incomes productivity; increasing the – Volume of
of small-scale producers by income of farmers production per
2030, particularly women, labour unit
indigenous peoples, family – Average income of
farmers, pastoralists and small-scale
fishers through equal and producers
secure access to land and
productive resources and
inputs, financial markets, etc.
Target 2.4 Ensure sustainable food Agricultural production and 1 indicator
production systems, and productivity; adoption of – Proportion of
implement resilient sustainable agricultural agricultural area
agricultural practices that practices; ecosystem and under productive
help maintain ecosystem, environmental sustainability; and sustainable
strengthen adaptation to fighting climate change agriculture
climate change and other
disasters and improve land
and soil quality
(continued)
agriculture
Target 2.5 Maintain genetic diversity Protecting local breeds and 2 indicators
of seeds, cultivated plants promoting genetic diversity – No. of plant and
and domesticated animals of plants and animals; animal genetic
and their species by 2020. intellectual property rights in resources secured in
Maintaining diversified agriculture conservation
seed and plant banks at facilities
national, regional, – Local breeds
international levels and classified at risk of
promoting access to fair extinction
and equitable sharing of
benefits derived from
utilisation of genetic
resources and traditional
knowledge
Target 2.a Increasing investment in Research and development 3 indicators
rural infrastructure, in agriculture; capacity- – Agriculture
agricultural research and building of farmers and other orientation index for
extension, technological stakeholders via knowledge govt. expenditures
development and services – Total official flows
maintaining plant and (official
livestock gene banks to development
promote agriculture’s assistance + other
productive capacity in flows) to agriculture
developing countries and
least developed countries
Target 2.b Address and prevent trade Eliminating trade barriers 1 indicator
restrictions and distortions – Agricultural export
in world markets, subsidies
elimination of all
agricultural export subsidies
and measures in accordance
with mandate of Doha
Development Agenda
Target 2.c Adopt measures to ensure Limiting volatility and 2 indicators
proper functioning of food anomalies in food pricing – Indicator of food
commodity markets and price anomalies
their derivatives, facilitate
timely access to market
information to limited food
price volatility
SDG #5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
Target 5.a Undertaking reforms to Recognising ownership 2 indicators
give women equal rights to rights of women on – Proportion of total
economic resources, access agricultural lands so that agricultural
to ownership and control they can access inputs, population by sex
over land and other resources and other skills – Proportion of
property, financial services, needed to improve outputs countries where
etc. in accordance with and yields legal framework
national laws guarantees women
equal rights to land
ownership
(continued)
agriculture
SDG #6: Ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
Target 6.4 Substantially increase About 70% of freshwater 2 indicators
water-use efficiency across around the world is used in – Change in
all sectors and ensure agriculture (Khokar 2017). water-use efficiency
sustainable withdrawals Promoting sustainable use of over time
and supply of freshwater to water in this sector is – Level of water
address water scarcity imperative to meet growing stress: freshwater
demands withdrawal/
available freshwater
resources
SDG #7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
Target 7.2 By 2030, increase Agriculture is the second 1 indicator
substantially the share of largest supplier of biofuels – Renewable energy
renewable energy in the after forests. In 2018, share in total final
global energy mix bioenergy held third place as energy consumption
a source of renewable
electricity generation (WBA
2020)
SDG #8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and
productive employment and decent work for all
Target 8.3 Promote development- Growth in agriculture and 1 indicator
oriented policies that allied sectors is directly – Proportion of
support productive linked to job creation and informal
activities, decent job better incomes for rural employment in total
creation, entrepreneurship households. Currently employment, by
and encourage agriculture is the second sector and sex
formalisation of micro, largest employer after the
small and medium services with agriculture
enterprises currently accounting for
28% of global employment
(World Bank n.d.)
SDG #12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
Target 12.3 By 2030, halve per capita Around 17% of total global 2 indicators
global food waste at retail production of food may have – Food Loss Index
and consumer levels and been wasted in 2019, acc. to – Food Waste Index
reduce food losses along the UNEP report (2021)
production and supply
chains, including
postharvest losses
SDG #13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
Target 13.2. Integrate climate change Agricultural activities 2 indicators
measures into national contribute to approx. 30% of – Number of
policies and planning global greenhouse gas countries with
emissions (IAEA n.d.) nationally
determined
contributions as
reported to
UNFCCC
– Total greenhouse
gas emissions/year
agriculture
SDG #14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for
sustainable development, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and
reverse land degradation and biodiversity loss
Target 14.1 Prevent and reduce marine Runoff of chemical 2 indicators
pollution of all kinds fertilisers from farms into – Index of coastal
particularly from water bodies eutrophication
land-based activities, – Plastic debris
including marine debris density
and nutrient pollution
SDG #15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems
Target 15.3 Combat desertification, Efficient and sustainable 1 indicator
restore degraded land and farming key to prevent – Proportion of land
soil, including land desertification of land that is degraded
affected by desertification, over total land area
droughts and floods
The assessment highlights that while SDG 2 has a direct bearing on the agricul-
ture sector by promoting zero hunger, other SDG goals would be equally impacted
by the AI interventions. Placing a higher responsibility on careful design and devel-
opment of AI programmes, keeping in view these interconnections across sectors
and actors, would help accelerate multi-faceted targets.
4 Leveraging AI for Advanced Agricultural Outputs
4.1 Selection of High Resistance Variety of Crops
The cultivation stage of the crops is an extremely labour-intensive process. Several

tasks are currently being performed manually by the farmers, such as weeding, de-
leafing, pesticide spraying, fertilising and so on. Increasingly, with the given short-
age of labour on farms, handling these manual tasks has become extremely
inefficient at times leading to poor outcomes.
New technological developments in the field of AI and robotics have been con-
tributing towards addressing some of these challenges. For the cultivation stage, the
deployment of hyperspectral vision systems with statistical machine learning has
paved the way for a new field called digital phenotyping.2 Within this technique,
sensors can identify plants based on the electromagnetic signatures they create. This
technology helps accelerate breeding programmes as they are able to identify plants
with disease and/or climate-resilient genes.
2
https://transmitter.ieee.org/feeding-the-world-with-intelligent-agriculture-solutions/
4.2 Working and Learning with Advanced Data
AI applications have made the design of autonomous vehicles possible that can
drive around the farmland while performing pruning and simultaneously collecting
relevant data for digital evaluations of plant growth and its factors.
For example, physical and climatic data of the cropland and the produce is used
in several instances to indicate factors contributing to effective plant growth. For
instance, AI has been able to evaluate and assess which pesticide works best; irriga-
tion cycles provide higher yield, etc.
In Colombia, a platform called as eKakashi has been used to evaluate several
farm factors to advise farmers on indicators to advance crop yield. The model sends
suggestions to farmers on estimated fertiliser usage, the need for an increase in irri-
gation and if there is a requirement for more labour.
Going forward, not only can this data be visualised on a computer screen; the
autonomous system can direct components to take relevant action. Smart systems
are now increasingly prevalent in the farmlands, and through them, we can expect
to achieve higher food security and sustainability and ultimately zero hunger
by 2030.
4.3 Precision Agriculture
Several AI-based technologies have been piloted in different regions of the world,
which use a complex camera system to target and spray weeds. Because of these, AI
systems/robots are expected to use up to 90% less farm inputs, including herbicides,
water for irrigation, fertilisers, etc., making it cheaper than traditional treatments.3
It has been observed that in the past few years, there has been an enhanced interest
in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) applications towards surveillance of farms,
recognition and detection of pests, diseases and weeds and human body detection.
The deployment of exceptional imaging technology involves delivery, photography
and detection to assist the farmer to detect issues and identify solutions efficiently.
4.4 Augmenting Labour Force and Skills
AI enables the farmer to gather vast amounts of data from government and public
websites and examine them. This will help equip the farmers to tackle various issues
and foster an intelligent method of farming, which will assist towards higher crop
production.
3
https://interestingengineering.com/9-robots-that-are-invading-the-agriculture-industry
4.5 Maximising Returns
The emerging technologies help the smallholder farmer to select the optimum crops
and hybrid seed preferences. AI identifies the various weather conditions and the
varying soil types for best seed selection. This enables the farmer to achieve the
annual outcomes, end users’ needs and market trends towards an efficient maximi-
sation of the crop return.
4.6 Chatbots for Farmers
AI-based chatbots in association with machine learning techniques help the stake-
holder to receive solutions to their unanswered questions. For instance, chatbots
help the farmers receive advice and recommendations from experts (Talviya
et al. 2020).
4.7 Intelligent Crop Planning
The adoption of emerging technological models to address the various climate

change issues impacts the agricultural sector. AI crop planning models create a
design towards enhanced crop productivity, consumer needs, market intelligence,
and infrastructure for a broad, all-inclusive, market-oriented and upgradeable plan.
4.8 Postharvest Value Chain Operations
This aspect helps tackle the various challenges in post harvest value chain opera-
tions and puts forward technological solutions. This will help improve farmers’
incomes and boost returns for supply chain actors in the agriculture ecosystem. The
technical solutions are spread across six key areas: quality assessment, trackability,
strategic organisation and warehousing, financial services, buyer-supplier compati-
bility and market-risk management.
5 Can AI Impede Achievement of SDGs in Agriculture?
Studies have observed that AI has the ability to act as an enabler on 134 targets
across all SDGs, whereas 59 targets lag behind and are impacted negatively by the
emergence of AI (Vinuesa et al. 2020). Evaluating some of the impacts of AI on
agriculture leads us to deeply assess scenarios within which AI would impede SDGs
in the agriculture sector.
5.1 Need for Massive Computational Resources
AI technology systems as well as some of the other emerging technologies like

blockchain (including IoTs), their research, and product design require huge com-
putational resources. These computational resources are available through massive
computing centres which require extremely high energy to run. These in turn gener-
ate large amounts of carbon footprint. For instance, blockchains are expected to
utilise as much electricity as some countries’ overall electricity needs and hence
may compromise SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean
Energy) unless backed by clean energy sources.
5.2 Potential to Accelerate Inequalities
While AI technology systems function as a catalyst to attain the 2030 agenda, they
also have the ability to generate inequalities. Agriculture is the largest employer
globally, and employment opportunities are not keeping in sync with a rapidly
increasing population. Automation of routine tasks for better efficiency is bound to
displace human labour in the agriculture sector, thereby exacerbating employment
challenges, especially in developing countries (Fraser and Charlebois 2016). This
displacement may compromise our global aim to achieve SDG 1 (No Poverty),
SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
5.3 Uneven Distribution of AI Systems
With the unequal allocation of AI systems, the poor accessibility of AI systems in

developing countries is a major challenge. For instance, advanced AI agricultural
tools can be inaccessible to smallholder workers and, therefore, create a greater gap,
particularly to the producers in the developed countries. This might impact our
global goal to achieve SDG 10 (reducing inequalities within and between countries).
6 Challenges with AI Adoption in Agriculture
The ability of machines to analyse, process and solve any perceivable set of infor-
mation and data within a physical and natural setting has far superseded human
capabilities. It is because of breakthrough advances in many technologies, including
satellite imagery, cloud computing, machine learning, deep learning, artificial neu-
ral networks, etc. This has now made it possible to ‘algorithmise’ agriculture, with
the help of overwhelming data being collected about the different parameters and
conditions of agriculture. However, as with any major transformation that is consid-

ered to mark a paradigm shift, the penetration of AI technologies in agriculture is
also confronting its own set of deep-seated suspicion and challenges that threaten to
mar its future progress.
Although it has been observed that AI combined with IoT will radically trans-
form crop production in the future, certain challenges come with using AI in the
sector. Some of the challenges leading to the adverse impacts are listed below:
6.1 Structured and Coherent Data
The data systems are currently highly fragmented within the sector. The data in the
agriculture sector is scattered in different parts, including supply chains, agro,
genetics, livestock and marine, and with diverse purposes such as data representa-
tion, data exchange and layered applications and, therefore, requires consolidation
and organisation. Besides, data collection could be restricted as the crop-specific
data is available two times a year, mostly during sowing season, and the all-year
availability of data is not a possibility. This could limit the development of a mature
database and robust AI technology. Therefore, there is a need to bridge the different
aspects within the sector and connect all the areas to establish a uniform and con-
ventional adoption of measures for the sector. This will enable the rapid adoption of
standards and a stronger agenda-setting in developments across the sector
(Archer 2017).
6.2 Lack of Knowledge
The sophisticated nature of this digital revolution makes it really difficult for an
average farmer to understand and implement these technological solutions to
improve farming methods, especially in developing countries. To overcome this
knowledge gap and suspicion related to the emerging technology would present a
serious bottleneck in adopting AI solutions in agriculture. To boost crop productiv-
ity, precision farming requires the implementation of cutting-edge technology. For
the farmer, establishing an IoT architecture and sensor network for the field can be
challenging and burdensome. There is no room for tech errors and defective man-
agement in the agriculture sector. This can lead to disastrous consequences.
Therefore, it is of utmost importance to equip farmers with the concept of smart
farming – using tools and equipment and its implementation.
6.3 Limited Scope of Scalability
As the properties and characteristics of agricultural fields significantly vary across

the geographical regions and landscapes, the IoT and AI pilots are confronted with
the issue of producing scalable solutions. Agricultural quantification is an extremely
difficult task to accomplish even within a definable and coherent region, as no two
agricultural fields are completely alike. The conditions are always prone to change.
The difficulty in predicting the weather, variability in soil quality and the constant
possibility of disease and pest threats make the experimentation and implementa-
tion of innovative technologies much more challenging and laborious (Linaza et al.
2021; Byrum 2019). Some researchers argue that the data currently being retrieved
across the fields is not sufficient to be considered ‘big data’. There is considerable
debate regarding whether the presently available agriculture data is fulfilling the
five Vs of big data dimensions identified as volume, velocity, variety, veracity and
valorisation (Rubio and Mas 2020). The small size and scale of agricultural farms
worldwide is another major challenge to AI adoption. According to FAO, five out of
every six farms in the world is less than two hectares, and they produce about 35 per
cent of the world’s food (FAO 2021). The fragmentation of spatial data is a major
limitation as it hinders the collection of ‘big data’, which is a critical requirement
for developing and scaling AI solutions.
6.4 Poor Awareness of the Farm Production Functions
Since the production function is not the same for all the crops and its production
function changes according to varying farm zones and over the crop growth cycle,
there will always remain the possibility of incorrect inputs in the applications (for
instance, spraying excessive nitrogen fertiliser), which could result in crop destruc-
tion. This requires the training of AI systems to adequately optimise output levels by
making the ideal utilisation of the available and limited data (Fakhruddin 2017).
6.5 Technological Infrastructure and Investment
Connectivity, acceptability, the safety of IoT devices, loss and manipulation of data,
database issues and denial of service attacks are real concerns that stand in the way
of AI penetration in rural areas. Moreover, the high cost of hardware devices, soft-
ware and their operations, updates and maintenance will add to the already existing
concerns of insufficient rural infrastructure. Uncertainty of costs regarding fuel and
water allocations lowers the margins for farmer investments. Thus IoT-based solu-
tions are challenging for small-scale farmers (Villa-Henriksen et al. 2020).
7 Conclusion
Although the implementation of AI in the agriculture sector is only in the initial

stages, it holds tremendous future potential against the challenges that threaten the
sustainability of food production and supply. Based on the above discussion, devel-
oping a sustainable AI program for agriculture would be predicated on the following
interwoven factors:
(a) To achieve the outlined agriculture-related SDG targets according to their
indicators
We identified the following SDG targets as linked to agriculture: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3,
2.4, 2.5, 2.a, 2.b, 2.c, 5.a, 6.4, 7.2, 8.3, 12.3, 13.2, 14.1 and 15.3. For example,
Vinuesa et al. (2020) analysed to what extent AI could act as an enabler to achieve
these targets.
(b) To achieve the outlined advanced agricultural outputs
We proposed the following parameters to be crucial for advanced agricultural
outputs: selection of high resistance varieties of crops, working and learning with
advanced data, precision agriculture, labour force and skills, maximised returns,
chatbots for farmers, intelligent crop planning as well as postharvest value chain
operations.
(c) To prevent the outlined potential impediments of other SDG targets
We noted that supporting the above parameters involves risks to impede other
SDG targets, which are the need for massive computational resources, the potential
to accelerate inequalities as well as an uneven distribution of AI systems.
(d) To tackle the outlined challenges in AI adoption in agriculture
We also identified challenges, which have to be addressed to progress with AI in
agriculture, categorised as follows: structured and coherent data, lack of knowledge,
the limited scope of scalability, poor awareness of the farm production functions as
well as technological infrastructure and investment.
As a way forward towards these goals we suggest to focus on the following topics:
7.1 Strengthening of Skills and Capacities
There need to be more investments into skill development in order to increase human
capacity and adaptability to new methods. Therefore, effective AI design should be
accompanied by a comprehensive training and capacity-building programme for all
involved stakeholders. Greater ‘digital literacy’ amongst farmers can enable them to
use necessary digital platforms and tools effectively. Government employees and
other key actors must also be targeted through extensive education and training pro-
grammes to increase the effectiveness of programmes (Birner et al. 2021).
7.2 Cooperation and Readiness Amongst Key Stakeholders
There are several stakeholders in addition to the farmers when it comes to AI and
agriculture, such as national governments and soft- and hardware companies (Birner
et al. 2021). They all will need to be involved in creating a unified framework for
issues such as data rights, privacy, consent management, benefits and rights of farm-
ers to ensure equitable participation and protection of all stakeholders.
There must be efforts to ensure greater digital and financial inclusivity for all. There
is not just an increase in the concentrated market power of large agribusiness enter-
prises but small-scale farmers. This can be done by combining and coordinating private
and public action that benefits people and the planet both through forming multi-stake-
holder partnerships involving farmers, farm labourers, national and state governments,
industries, research institutions, start-ups and other businesses. To advance readiness
amongst farmers, especially those located in remote regions, it is crucial to establish
policies that create increasingly conducive business environments (Birner et al. 2021).
7.3 Mitigation of Data and Infrastructure-Related Risks
The complexity and interrelation of data need to be sufficiently established and

addressed. There are major obstacles that will arise due to the fragmentation of
technological development in agricultural processes. These include issues related to
control and operation of IoT/AI machines, data storage, data sharing and manage-
ment and interoperability, amongst other factors (Alreshidi 2019). AI solutions may
not be generally applicable, and their customisation according to local factors and
characteristics will play a huge role in determining their success.
Moreover, the ongoing digital agriculture transformation has to progress further,
which requires major transformations of agricultural systems, rural communities
and natural resource management practices which can be advanced via mobile
devices, precision agriculture and remote sensing technologies (FAO 2019).
Providing communication/Internet infrastructure, especially in rural areas, would
help ensure equitable access for underprivileged groups. Given the high costs of
cognitive solutions for farming, there needs to be greater affordability in order to
ensure higher penetration and rapid adoption amongst farmers.
7.4 Readiness of the Key Stakeholders
In this chapter, we have motivated the importance of AI applications in agriculture

and associated SDG targets. We then outlined opportunities and challenges. We pro-
posed a way forward, which relies on strengthening skills and capacities, the readi-
ness and cooperation amongst key stakeholders and the mitigation of data and
infrastructure-related risks.
References
2030 Vision Global Goals. AI and SDGs: The State of Play. https://assets.2030vision.com/files/
resources/resources/state-of-play-report.pdf\.
Alreshidi, E. 2019. Smart Sustainable Agriculture Underpinned by Internet of Things and Artificial
Intelligence. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications. https://
arxiv.org/pdf/1906.03106.pdf.
Archer, P. 2017. Six Challenges for Agriculture. Big Data Europe. https://www.big-data-europe.
eu/six-challenges-for-agriculture/.
Atlam, H.F., M.A. Azad, A.G. Alzahrani, and G. Wills. 2020. A Review of Blockchain in Internet
of Things and AI. Big Data and Cognitive Computing 4 (4): 28.
Ayaz, M., M. Ammad-Uddin, Z. Sharif, A. Mansour, and E.H.M. Aggoune. 2019. Internet-of-
Things (IoT)-Based Smart Agriculture: Toward Making the Fields Talk. IEEE Access 7:
129551–129583. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334858202_Internet-of-Things_
IoT-Based_Smart_Agriculture_Toward_Making_the_Fields_Talk.
Aydin, S., and M.N. Aydin. 2020. Semantic and syntactic interoperability for agricultural open-
data platforms in the context of IoT using crop-specific trait ontologies. Applied Sciences 10
(13): 4460.
Baumueller H. et al. 2017. Innovation for Sustainable Agricultural Growth in Ghana. https://
research4agrinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/GhanaDossier2017.pdf
Ben Ayed, R., and M. Hanana. 2021. Artificial Intelligence to improve Food and Agriculture
Sector. Journal of Food Quality. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jfq/2021/5584754/.
Birner, R., T. Daum, and C. Pray. 2021. Who Drives the Digital Revolution in Agriculture? A
Review of Supply-Side Trends, Players and Challenges. Applied Economic Perspectives and
Policy: 1–26. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aepp.13145.
Byrum, Joseph. 2019. The Challenges for Artificial Intelligence in Agriculture. plugandplaytech-
centre.com, https://www.plugandplaytechcenter.com/resources/artificial-intelligence-agtech/
CGIAR. n.d. Colombia: The Online Authority on Rice. https://ricepedia.org/colombia
CIAT. 2018. Is Big Data the Answer? Digitalising Agriculture to Make it Smarter. https://ciat.
cgiar.org/annual-report-2017-2018/is-big-data-the-answer/
Fakhruddin, H. 2017. Precision Agriculture: Top 15 Challenges and Issues. https://teks.co.in/site/
blog/precision-agriculture-top-15-challenges-and-issues/
FAO. 2017. The Future of Food and Agriculture: Trends and Challenges. Rome. http://www.fao.
org/3/i6583e/i6583e.pdf
———. 2019. Digital Technologies in Agriculture and Rural Areas: Status Report. https://www.
fao.org/3/ca4985en/ca4985en.pdf
———. 2021. Small Family Farmers Produce a Third of World’s Food. http://www.fao.org/news/
story/en/item/1395127/icode/
Farming First, CGIAR. n.d. Celebrating Science and Innovation in Agriculture. https://farming-
first.org/science-and-innovation#section_1
Farooq, Muhammad et al. 2020. Role of IoT Technology in Agriculture: A Systematic
Literature Review.
Feed the Future Ghana. 2018. Feed the Future Ghana Agriculture Technology Transfer Project
FInal Project Report. USAID. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00TQZV.pdf
Fraser, Evan, and Sylvain Charlebois. 2016. Automated Farming: Good News for
Food Security, Bad News for Job Security? The Guardian, Guardian News and
Media, 18 February 2016. www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/feb/18/
automated-farming-food-security-rural-jobs-unemployment-technology
“How to Ensure the Digital Revolution Leaves No One Behind.” Farming First, 15 May 2019.
https://farmingfirst.org/digital-revolution-agriculture-leave-no-one-behind
IAEA. n.d.. https://www.iaea.org/topics/greenhouse-gas-reduction
IDB. 2019. IDB Lab, CIAT and SoftBank Partner to Promote Smart Rice Farming in Colombia.
https://www.iadb.org/en/news/idb-l ab-c iat-a nd-s oftbank-p artner-p romote-s mart-r ice-
farming-colombia
IFDC. 2016. Audio and Video Campaigns Reach Farmers Where They Are. https://ifdc.
org/2016/02/04/audio-and-video-campaigns-reach-farmers-where-they-are/
Khokar, Tariq. 2017. Chart: Globally 70% Freshwater is Used for Agriculture. World Bank. https://
blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/chart-globally-70-freshwater-used-agriculture.
Kothari, Siddharth et al. 2020. How Artificial Intelligence Could Widen the Gap between
Rich and Poor Nations. IMF Blog, 3 December 2020. https://blogs.imf.org/2020/12/02/
how-artificial-intelligence-could-widen-the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-nations/
Linaza, M.T., J. Posada, J. Bund, P. Eisert, M. Quartulli, J. Döllner, et al. 2021. Data-Driven
Artificial Intelligence Applications for Sustainable Precision Agriculture. Agronomy 11 (6):
1227. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/11/6/1227.
Londono, Vilegas, D. J. et al. 2020. Closing Yield Gaps in Colombian Direct Seeding Rice Systems:
A Stochastic Frontier Analysis.https://doi.org/10.15446/agron.colomb.v38n1.79470.
Rubio, Veronica and Francisco Mas. 2020. From Smart-Farming Towards Agriculture 5.0: Review
on Crop Data Management.
Sen, S. 2019. Challenges of the Data Ecosystem in Agriculture. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/
challenges-data-ecosystem-agriculture-satarupa-sen/
Softbank Corp. 2019. Corp. ‘s AI-powered ‘e-kakashi’ Solution for Sustainable Agriculture
Adopted for Smart Rice Farming Project in Colombia. https://www.softbank.jp/en/corp/news/
press/sbkk/2019/20191028_02/
Talaviya, Tanha, Dhara Shah, Nivedita Patel, Hiteshri Yagnik, and Manan Shah. 2020.
Implementation of Artificial Intelligence in Agriculture for Optimisation of Irrigation and
Application of Pesticides and Herbicides. Artificial Intelligence in Agriculture 4: 58–73.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258972172030012X.
UNDESA. 2021. Policy Brief #110: Time for Transformative Changes for SDGs:
What the Data Tells Us. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/
un-desa-policy-brief-110-time-for-transformative-changes-for-sdgs-what-the-data-tells-us/
UNEP. Food Waste Index Report 2021. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/
unep-food-waste-index-report-2021.
Villa-Henriksen, A., G.T. Edwards, L.A. Pesonen, O. Green, and C.A.G. Sørensen. 2020. Internet
of Things in Arable Farming: Implementation, Applications, Challenges and Potential.
Biosystems Engineering 191: 60–84. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1537511020300039.
Vinuesa, et al. 2020. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Achieving the Sustainable Development
Goals. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-14108-y
WEF. 2021. Artificial Intelligence for Agriculture Innovation. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/
WEF_Artificial_Intelligence_for_Agriculture_Innovation_2021.pdf
Wight, A. 2019. When It Comes To Tech, These Rice Farmers Are Outstanding
in Their Field. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewwight/2019/09/15/
when-it-comes-to-tech-these-rice-farmers-are-outstanding-in-their-field/?sh=22f8918e372e
World Bank, CIAT. 2014. Climate Smart Agriculture in Colombia. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/
handle/10568/51367
———. n.d. Employment in Agriculture. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS
World Bioenergy Association. 2020. Global Bioenergy Statistics 2020. http://www.worldbioen-
ergy.org/uploads/201210%20WBA%20GBS%202020.pdf.
Young, S. 2020. The Future of Farming: Artificial Intelligence and
Agriculture. Harvard International Review. https://hir.harvard.edu/
the-future-of-farming-artificial-intelligence-and-agriculture/.
AI for Sustainable Agriculture
and Rangeland Monitoring
Natalia Efremova, James Conrad Foley, Alexey Unagaev,

and Rebekah Karimi
Abstract This paper examines the applications of artificial intelligence (AI) and
satellite imagery in sustainable agriculture, that is, how to allocate resources across
the farmland based on the monitoring results from satellite imagery. We first pro-
pose a novel framework for addressing climate change-related problems in agri-
food sector that considers recent advances in AI and earth observation (EO) data,
which describes our approach on high level. We examine the existing Sustainable
Development Goals and define a list of targets and indicators where using AI would
be the most beneficial for practitioners, researchers, and policymakers. Next, we
consider a case of a conservancy, where management needs to decide on how to
allocate the resources in a sustainable way. In this case, the resources are cattle
herds, which need to be moved across the conservancy for optimal grazing of grass
and providing soil nutrition. We characterise the optimal resource allocation policy
considering several physical biomonitoring parameters, such as grass biomass, leaf
area, percentage of overgrazing, and many others. These parameters are monitored
with satellite imagery in a weekly manner over the large territories. We propose an
AI-based approach for fast and reliable interpretation of this imagery to provide
insights for farmers in a fully automated manner. This monitoring is then combined
with a simple resource allocation policy. Our results suggest that (i) the proposed
framework can be applied for near real-time monitoring of large territories with a
highly accurate estimation of biomonitoring parameters, (ii) the proposed resource
allocation method outperforms existing rangeland monitoring practices, and (iii) it
N. Efremova (*)
Queen Mary University London, London, UK
J. C. Foley · A. Unagaev
DeepPlanet, Oxford, UK
R. Karimi
Enonkishu Conservancy, Lemek, Kenya
400 N. Efremova et al.
can be used to estimate whether current agricultural practices are aligned with
Sustainable Development Goals, specifically with SDG 2 “zero hunger”.
Keywords AI · Climate change · Agricultural management · Rangeland

monitoring · Sustainable Development Goals
1 Introduction
1.1 Problem Overview
The framework of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is a challenge for

developers and researchers applying artificial intelligence (AI). The 169 targets are
measured by 232 indicators each of which require a dedicated “evaluative infra-
structure” (Kornberger et al. 2017). Statistical standard-setting within the United
Nations is technically and politically complex. The estimated direct cost of measur-
ing all SDGs is over $US 250 billion, excluding opportunity costs (Jerven 2019).
Many indicators are at risk of elimination in the following assessment rounds by the
technical commission of UN Statistics.1 If the global community does not come up
with generally accepted methodologies and if countries are unable to adopt them
effectively, the SDGs cannot be monitored which is a repetition of the failures in the
preceding millennium development goals.
The United Nations already have a loose network of actors and processes that are
related to AI.2 We, therefore, argue that the primary purpose of the AI for SDGs
framework is achieving the SDG target 17.19: building a systematic partnership to
develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement
GDP. Under the current framework, this target is primarily measured by the $US
value of all resources made available to strengthen statistical capacity in developing
countries (SDG 17.19.1). AI for Good can contribute in three ways. First, we can
help decreasing the cost of data collection and analysis. Second, we can help to
enhance the capacity for measurement. This systematic approach allows, thirdly, to
embed AI solutions within direct interventions more effectively.
One step towards this goal is using AI with earth observation data (EO). AI and
EO can provide reliable and disaggregated data for better monitoring of the SDGs.
Building on the existing work in relation to poverty and agricultural yields (Burke
and Lobell 2017), our project is in the context of rangeland monitoring. Drawing on
studies of calculative practices (Miller and Power 2013), Table 1 below shows four
main roles of AI as part of an evaluative infrastructure, starting from a mapping role
based on earth observation data.
1
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/
2
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/unsdg
AI for Sustainable Agriculture and Rangeland Monitoring 401
Earth observation data is freely available and highly accurate. These data can
further be combined on the socio-economic, organisational, and institutional level
whereby the roles of AI can be mediating, adjudicating, and ranking.
Table 2 lists non-exhaustively the SDGs indicators that can be addressed by AI
and EO data. Asterisk (*) indicates the SDGs, addressed by this project or those that
potentially could be affected by the outcomes of the proposed approach. We distin-
guish between 1st generation and 2nd generation of AI-EO applications to SDGs
(with more sophisticated AI applications). Some international bodies and working
groups suggest the use satellite imaging data for several SDGs (DANE 2016, 2017a,
b). Those proposals centre around SDGs, whose indicators primarily use geographic
data. A further step is to use AI and EO in contexts where only small sample sizes
are available or where states lack the capability to collect and analyse the data.
Open-source GIS and data analysis techniques allow us to evaluate progress towards
the SDGs and strengthen accountability (Efremova et al. 2019).
The UN classifies indicators into three tiers according to two criteria.3 First, a
generally accepted methodology exists (methodology criteria). Second, this meth-
odology is widely adopted around the world and states generate sufficient data
(adoption criteria). Tier 1 meet both methodology and adoption criteria. Tier 2 indi-
cators do not meet either the methodology or adoption criteria, and tier 3 indicators
fail to meet both. Therefore, the most significant contribution of AI and EO can be
made regarding tier 2 and 3 indicators. We also note that we have found some tier 1
indicators that are insufficiently measuring the intended target (e.g. climate action
targets 13.2 and 13b with Indicators 13.2.1 and 13.b.1). As a result, more SDGs
could be identified for improving tier 1 indicators through a systematic AI and EO
review. Tier 3 indicators would contribute most from the application of AI-based
methods; therefore, the presented case study considers only SGDs with tier 3 indi-
cators. In the next sections, we will discuss this case study in detail. However, first
we have to dive deeper into how we can use AI and satellite data to tackle a few of
the SDG targets and to present a top-down theoretical model of AI-EO SDG assess-
ment using one of the targets in SDG 2 (zero hunger) as an example.
Table 1 Four main roles of AI as a part of evaluative infrastructure

Type of data Data analysis Role of AI
Geographic Constructing global calculative space Mapping
Socio-economic Identifying needs and vulnerabilities Mediating
Organisational Performance measurement Adjudicating
Institutional Rating and standardisation Ranking
3
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/iaeg-sdgs/tier-classification/
Table 2 A list of targets and indicators that can be assessed with AI, coupled with earth observation
(EO) data
SDGs, targets, and indicators Explanation Tier
6. Clean water and 6.1.1* Change in the extent of water-related ecosystems over III
sanitation time
6.3.1 Proportion of wastewater safely treated III
6.3.2 Proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water III
quality
6.6.1 Change in the extent of water-related ecosystems over III
time
9. Industries, 9.1.1 Proportion rural population living within 2 km of III
innovation, and all-season road
infrastructure
11. Sustainable cities 11.3.1* Ratio of land consumption rate and population growth II
and communities rate
11.7.1 Average proportion of the built surface of the cities II
corresponding to open spaces for the public use of all
15. Life on land 15.1.1 Forest area as a proportion of total land area I
15.2.1 Progress towards sustainable forest management III
15.3.1* Proportion of land that is degraded over total land area III
15.4.2 Mountain Green Cover Index III
1. No poverty 1.2.2* Proportion of men, women, and children of all ages II
living in poverty in all its dimensions according to
national definitions
1.4.1 Proportion of population living in households with III
access to basic services
2. Zero hunger 2.4.1* Proportion of agricultural area under productive and III
sustainable agriculture
2.5.1 Number of plant and animal genetic resources for food III
and agriculture secured in either medium- or long-term
conservation facilities
6. Clean water and 6.5.2 Proportion of transboundary basin area with an III
sanitation operational arrangement for water cooperation
11. Sustainable cities 11.2.1 Proportion of population that has convenient access to II
and communities public transport, by sex, age, and persons with
disabilities
13. Climate action 13.1.2 Number of countries that adopt and implement national II
disaster risk reduction strategies in line with the Sendai
Framework
13.1.3 Proportion of local governments that adopt and II
implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line
with national strategies
13.2* Integrate climate change measures into national I
policies, strategies, and planning
13.b* Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective I
climate change-related planning and management in
least developed countries
14. Life below water 14.1.1 Index of coastal eutrophication and floating plastic III
debris density
1.2 AI-EO SDG Model: Zero Hunger
Below, we propose a top-down approach that can be used to evaluate Indicator 2.4.1
“Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture”. This
task could be decomposed into several sub-tasks. We propose a top-down approach,
where we first define high-level objectives, further decomposing them into smaller
elements, each of which could be solved using one machine learning method each.
In other words, we first want to obtain a large image of the land and classify it on
different smaller regions, based on land-use similarity. After this, assign a sub-task
to a smaller region of land, which can be used to provide actionable insights for this
type of land. Finally, we combine the results of these sub-tasks and provide an over-
all managerial decision support for the whole region of interest, based on the com-
bination of these individual recommendations (Fig. 1). Note that we only provide
recommendations based on our observations, not substituting the decision-maker in
this process.
In the case of Indicator 2.4.1, a larger task will be finding all agricultural land in
the region of interest and classifying it by the type of crop, growing in this region.
2.4.1. ”Proportion of agricultural area under

productive and sustainable agriculture”
Satellite image segmentation: crop

detection
Detection of more efficient crops in terms

of scarce resource consumption
Estimation of the amount of nutrients in the

soil
Detection of soil moisture and salinity
Crop yield prediction
Resource optimization
Fig. 1 A proposed framework for tackling target 2 (zero hunger) with AI and earth observation
data (satellite imagery and ground measurements)
Sub-tasks will include detection of potentially more efficient crops in terms of

scarce resource consumption (e.g. fresh water), estimation of the amount of nutri-
ents in the soil, detection of soil moisture and salinity, and crop yield prediction.
Finally, we would look at the current usage of these resources (water, nutrients, and
crop types) and make a decision whether the land is used sustainably or some
improvements can be made to current land management style. The focus of this
paper is on final sub-task (resource optimisation); however, we show the importance
of each on the steps to achieve this final goal.
1.3 AI-EO SDG Model: Climate Change
The earth is experiencing widespread and rapid changes that are already affecting
weather and climate across the globe. The scale of these changes is unprecedented
and are linked to increasingly variable and extreme weather events, including heat
waves, precipitation, drought, and storms. The human influence on these processes
is unequivocal and driven by increases in greenhouse gas emissions including CO2.
Contemporary farming practices make a significant impact on climate change in
terms of soil erosion, contamination groundwater supplies with excessive use of
herbicides and fertilisers, carbon emissions, etc. (Houghton et al. 2012). It is esti-
mated that agriculture, forestry, and other land-use activities account for 23% of the
total net anthropogenic emissions of GHGs with forestry and land-use change (i.e.
those emissions that do not relate directly to agriculture) accounting for 12.5% of
global GHG emissions (IPCC Climate Change 2021; Houghton et al. 2012).
On the other hand, climate change affects food production and supply chain in
multiple ways. It increases the likelihood of extreme weather events and reduces the
predictability of weather, and non-optimal growing conditions for crops may
become more likely. Therefore, the farmers need to adapt their practice to changing
environment to maintain the same level of crop yields. Additionally, supply chain
needs to know the location of the farms, address the approximate yield of the farms
in the region of interest, and increase local suppliers where possible to minimise
“climate costs” of mass food transportation. Finally, policymakers need to have
access to the above-mentioned data to be able to address emerging problems as
quickly as possible and help growers and sellers to act efficiently when the unex-
pected climate events (such as floods, droughts, fires, etc.) disrupt business as usual
in terms of both production and supply chain logistics.
Therefore, the proposed model can be applied to climate change target twice:
first time, to identify ways to minimise negative effect of agricultural practices on
the climate change, and, second time, to predict negative effects from climate
change on the agriculture and other farming practices. The first method will be
analogous to the set of actions that was described in the previous chapter since the
goal here will be to minimise scarce resource consumption and maximise the pro-
duced output. The second part, however, would have a slightly different structure.
We will first identify the high-level regional changes that emerge in the region of
interest. For example, unpredictable changes in precipitation patters can cause

unusual floods and droughts. As a result, farmers cannot predict how much to irri-
gate and when and how quickly soil is absorbing the water in case of rains. Precision
water measurement and monitoring can reduce water waste up to 18%. In urban
monitoring, measures can be taken to prevent loss and damage of property (Albert
et al. 2017). Changes in temperature patterns can cause frost damage to agricultural
crops. Changes in precipitation and temperature create favourable conditions for
diseases outbreaks throughout the year. All these changes can be monitored though
time series analysis of EO data, and researchers can provide recommendations
based on the detected anomalies in one or few of these measurements.
A very interesting application of AI and EO data is large-scale monitoring of
carbon, sequestered by plants (biotic carbon) and stored in the soil (soil organic
carbon). Such monitoring can help farmers to assess the available carbon stock on
the one hand and to improve current farming practices on another.
Assessment of carbon offset strategies requires inputs from multiple fields of
science, including engineering, plant science, conservation, AI, and agriculture.
Newly developed AI strategies can significantly improve the existing tools and can
help to implement them on global scale. The most natural way to mitigate carbon
emissions is to estimate natural uptake of CO2 by plants and soil. We can consider
the following ways to sequester CO2 that can be monitored by machine learning
tool: carbon sequestered in peatlands and forests and amount of carbon that can be
potentially produces by afforestation of available regions, for example, land in
which forests have been destroyed in a previous decade (Rolnick et al. 2019).
Similar model, but in a more complex form, can be applied to carbon stock
assessment as well. Modelling (and pricing) carbon stored in forests requires us to
assess how much is being sequestered or released across the planet. Most of a for-
est’s carbon is stored in above-ground biomass, so tree species and heights are a
good indicator of the carbon stock. The height of trees can be estimated accurately
with satellite aperture radar (SAR) imagery. Planting trees, also called afforestation,
can be a means of sequestering CO2 over the long term. Up to 0.9 billion hectares of
extra canopy cover could theoretically be added globally. However, care must be
taken when planting trees to ensure a positive impact. Afforestation that comes at
the expense of farmland could result in a net increase of GHG emissions. Moreover,
planting trees without regard for local conditions and native species can reduce the
climate impact of afforestation as well as negatively affecting biodiversity. AI can
be helpful in automating large-scale afforestation by locating appropriate planting
sites, monitoring plant health, assessing weeds, and analysing trends. Soil organic
carbon (SOC) is a valuable resource for mediating global climate change and secur-
ing food production. Despite an alarming rate of global plant diversity loss, uncer-
tainties concerning the effects of plant diversity on SOC remain, because plant
diversity not only stimulates litter inputs via increased productivity, thus enhancing
SOC, but also stimulates microbial respiration, thus reducing SOC (Chen et al.
2019). Plant diversity can be assessed with the AI methods that we describe in the
following sections in detail.
2 Background
2.1 Rangelands
Rangelands comprise approximately up to 70% of global terrestrial area (Boone

et al. 2018; Briske et al. 2015). Intact rangelands provide diverse ecosystem services
as the primary providers of carbon sequestration, hydrologic cycling, nutrient
cycling, air purification, biodiversity, and cultural services (Holechek et al. 2020).
Many of the ecosystem services provided by rangelands contribute to climate stabil-
ity and are essential to human life (Brown and Thorpe 2008). The predominant use
of rangeland is livestock grazing, essential to the livelihoods of 200 million Africans
who rely on them for income from sales of milk, meat, and skins, and for protein
consumption, draft power, and ritual and spiritual needs, among other uses (Boone
et al. 2018; Hoffman and Vogel 2008). As rangelands are managed by ecological
rather than agronomic means, they also provide forage for wildlife and are often
dominated by native species (McCollum et al. 2017).
The effects of climate change on tropical rangelands are likely to be negative,
including sudden changes in climate and extreme weather events, variability in the
livestock market, disease outbreaks, and unreliability of water sources (Herrero
et al. 2016; Hoffman and Vogel 2008). Higher temperatures combined with drought
will impair livestock production by negatively impacting animal physiological per-
formance, increasing ectoparasite abundance, and reducing forage quality and
quantity (Polley et al. 2017). Other human impacts, like changes in land-use pat-
terns, intensification of disturbances, and species introductions and movements are
likely to further challenge ecosystem integrity and functionality (Polley et al. 2017).
Demand for livestock products is projected to increase as peoples’ livelihoods
improve (Niamir-Fuller et al. 2012) until the middle of this century, which will put
increased pressure on livestock farmers to maximise stocking rates on rangelands
(Boone et al. 2018). As drought becomes more common, feed subsidies will allow
farmers to stock rangelands at an unsustainable rate, further degrading the range-
land and undercutting the linkage between economics and ecology (Holechek et al.
2020). Overgrazing and unsustainable farming of fertile patches of rangeland is
likely to increase as the pressure from climate change rises (Eldridge et al. 2011).
However, eventually, climate change is likely to cause a decline in livestock of
7.5–9.6%, an economic loss of $9.7–12.6 billion which will have a devastating
effect on 550 million poor people (earning less than $1.25/day) who depend on
livestock as one of their few or only assets, 58 millions of whom rely on rangelands
to support their livelihoods (Boone et al. 2018).
The managers of livestock within rangelands are already utilising adaptive man-
agement and have the capability of adapting and changing the livestock industry as
the climate grows more variable, a luxury many arable farmers are not privy to (Ash
et al. 2012; McCollum et al. 2017). Mitigation measures include increasing
flexibility to take advantage of periods of favourable production by consistently

adjusting stocking rates according to sustainable use of the rangelands, selection of
breeds suitable to the changes in the climate such as drought resistant breeds, adapt-
ing pest management, implementing supplemental forage, securing additional water
sources, preparing shelters for livestock where sun exposure or temperate condi-
tions may accelerate, and even a geographic relocation of cattle to a more suitable
habitat which may require securing land in different areas (Briske et al. 2015;
Reeves et al. 2017). The strategic allocation of resources and the development of
institutions and technology are critically necessary to efficiently prepare managers
of livestock and rangeland for future climate variability by building a robust system
for effective implementation of necessary adaptation strategies (Herrero et al. 2016).
By implementing climate change mitigation strategies, livestock farmers have
the capability of restoring the ecosystem services provided by rangelands by sus-
tainably managing their herds and herd movements. Managed responsibly within a
well-informed grazing plan, livestock can be utilised to rehabilitate degraded range-
lands, enhancing the forage available to wildlife and revitalising carbon sequestra-
tion (Tyrell et al. 2017; Schuman et al. 2002). Livestock enclosures can be utilised
to rehabilitate areas of severely degraded soil (Riginos et al. 2012). As rangelands
experience increased pressure from lower rainfall and climate variability, successful
rehabilitation of rangelands through responsible animal husbandry will be impera-
tive (Popp et al. 2009).
For many rangeland managers, current information on rangeland quality across
vast landscapes is not readily available because of the scale of the size of the land.
Oftentimes, herders use their traditional ecological knowledge to evaluate range-
lands and determine where the herds should move next (Jamsranjav et al. 2019).
Scientists have also developed field monitoring techniques to evaluate rangeland
quality and inform herd movements (Bolo et al. 2019). Both of these techniques are
effective but grow in complexity as the size of a managed landscape expands.
Herders may not frequent all areas that their herds have access to, and unless the
landscape is small, field monitoring may not be feasible as it is labour-intensive and
time-consuming to collect enough data to adequately inform decisions (Allred et al.
2021). As climate change is bound to demand more frequent management deci-
sions, equipping rangeland managers with a full picture of rangeland quality across
the landscape will enable them to proactively engage in sustainable rangeland man-
agement to maximise the benefits of herd movements.
The field of satellite imagery and incorporating artificial intelligence to upscale
existing field monitoring data has vast potential to promote the implementation of
sustainable rangeland management and inform decision-making across entire land-
scapes of rangeland (Bestelmeyer et al. 2021; Jones et al. 2020). Already, range-
lands in the Western United States have been evaluated using satellite imagery, and
the information obtained is being used to inform decisions on a national level, espe-
cially in management decisions to restore degraded areas (Di Stéfano et al. 2020).
2.2 AI for Climate Change and Agriculture: Overview
Researchers in machine learning are helping to speed up the progress in tackling

SDGs by working together with practitioners from various industries, from subsis-
tence farmers to global tech giants, to implement state-of-the-art machine learning
tools. As we have mentioned before, two approaches to tackle climate change are
mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation refers to reducing the causes of climate
change, such as using fossil fuels or reducing gas emissions. Adaptation refers to
minimising the consequences of climate change and dynamic adaptation to the
shifts in weather and environment overall. Integrated assessment models use cli-
mate science and socio-economic factors to understand costs and benefits of differ-
ent pathways, finding the lowest-cost one (Wedding et al. 2021a, b). Within the
climate change mitigation framework, the following areas can be enhanced with
ML tools: electricity systems, transportation, industrial landscape, forestry and agri-
culture, and carbon dioxide tracking and removal. Adaptation framework includes
climate prediction, reducing societal impacts, solar geoengineering. Overarching
frameworks refer to global policies, markets, education, and finance (Rolnick
et al. 2019).
Both mitigation and adaptation approaches find its applications in agri-tech and
precision agriculture. When we talk about mitigation, we want to mention multiple
monitoring tools: water content monitoring, soil structure and soil carbon monitor-
ing, crop detection, and crop disease monitoring.
Agricultural practices are a major contributor to climate change. Large amounts
of energy are consumed by chemical synthesis, irrigation, and farm machinery,
while greenhouse gas emissions also arise from the decomposition of fertiliser and
organic matter in soil.
Industrial farming practices rely heavily on pesticides and fertilisers; phosphorus
and nitrogen leaking into groundwater threaten human health and aquatic ecosys-
tems; all this leading to soil susceptibility to diseases and to droughts through loss
of water holding capacity.4 Irrigation for agriculture is the largest freshwater usage
in the world accounting for 70% of freshwater usage, and monitoring techniques for
soil moisture can be used to construct precision irrigation regimes that save water
making for a more sustainable world.
Agricultural monitoring provides timely and reliable way to access the state of
the field or farm and the surrounding territories, utilised for gathering data and pro-
ducing forecasts. Monitoring with satellite imagery and other remote sensing tools,
such as drones is becoming mainstream, since it provides rapid precision data across
the entire globe. Monitoring can be performed with various tools, including ground
observations, satellite, aeroplane and drone imagery, or sensor networks. These
tools are widely used in weather monitoring, drought, hurricane and flooding pre-
diction, and nutrient and water content detection in the soil. However, this process
4
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2018/11/13/trace-genomics-raises-13-million-to-give-corn-
and-soybean-farmers-insight-into-soil-health/?sh=3749b6de1f19
requires a lot of work, since imagery often requires preprocessing to get into a
usable format and then beyond this it may need computer vision processing of satel-
lite imagery (Demir et al. 2018), cloud removal (Singh and Komodakis 2018), and
complex band calculations (Lees et al. 2020).
3 Methods
3.1 Overview of the Proposed Approach
The proposed approach utilises state-of-the-art artificial intelligence algorithms,

combined with earth observation and historical data to provide near real-time moni-
toring of rangelands, early warnings of negative events, and recommendation
actions to improve undesired situations. The method, presented in this work, shows
that it is possible to perform automated monitoring of rangelands in an accurate and
scalable way. This allows for rapid and frequent insights into the condition of areas,
including their suitability for both grazing and nature conservation. Precision moni-
toring allows for the creation of adaptable grazing regimes which alter how long
each area is grazed or which area to move grazing to depending on the condition of
an area or the surrounding areas. This can in then be used to help maximise the use
of an area for both conservation and economic.
Satellite imagery has been used to monitor the health of vegetation since the
inception of multispectral imagery with vegetation indices such as the normalised
difference vegetation index (NDVI) being widespread (Rouse et al. 1974). It allows
for the monitoring of large areas without having to physically be there drastically
reducing labour and costs requirements. Machine learning methods have become
popular tools for the analysis of satellite imagery and other remote sensing data.
Particularly computer vision tasks such as classification from satellite imagery are a
powerful tool to increase understanding of large areas (Albert et al. 2017; Iino et al.
2018). As such these tools are ideally suited for monitoring of community conser-
vancies giving the ability to understand the health of the entire conservancy and
pinpoint areas which are less healthy and overgrazed or predict the yield of grass for
cattle allowing for sustainable harvest.
The proposed methodology can be integrated within the web platform to provide
weekly visualisation of over 18 essential biomonitoring parameters, such as over-
grazing, bare soil, leaf area, grass biomass estimates, and others. It represents a
novel framework for addressing climate change-related problems in agri-food sec-
tor that considers recent advances in machine leaning (ML) and earth observation
data (EO) and usage of freely available satellite imagery (European Space Agency
Sentinel 2 satellite). We provide guidelines for managers on how to effectively
adjust how they plan, site, forecast, innovate, and develop products and services
within the agri-food sector using EO data and ML tools. Besides theoretical frame-
work, this method contributes to the practice on adaptive rangeland management.
We show that strategic resource allocation, including cattle movement within the
rangelands to adjust grass biomass, contributes to climate change mitigation mea-
sures made on land, prevent soil erosion, and balance damage to the land from
wildlife.
The case study considers a practical tool, including novel ML techniques to mon-
itor 18 strategic parameters over the large territories. The pilot was done on as
Enonkishu Conservancy (4000 acres) in the Maasai Mara ecosystem of Kenya and
deployed with the support of the European Space Agency. The results of the pilot
project showed the significant increase in capacity to monitor the rangeland territo-
ries, opportunity to make more efficient management decisions, and overall
improvement of agricultural practices.
3.2 Data
This study was performed over the Enonkishu Conservancy in the Maasai Mara,
Kenya. The Mara Serengeti ecosystem is in a vulnerable state with the threat of
human encroachment and associated activities such as extensive overgrazing and
firewood and charcoal production. As the Mara conservancies provide a habitat for
most of the biodiversity in the Mara region, it is imperative that areas of severe
degradation are rehabilitated to support biodiversity of wildlife and minimise envi-
ronmental impact due to water run off on bare soil. Since 2013, Enonkishu (1705
hectares) and the Mara Training Centre have been conducting intensive monitoring
of the vegetation to drive rangeland improvements such as regenerative grazing by
livestock. While adjacent rangelands experience several hundred livestock fatalities
annually, Enonkishu’s regenerative grazing strategies have eliminated livestock
fatalities. However, monitoring has been very labour-intensive and as a result is dif-
ficult to scale to the entire Maasai Mara Serengeti region (250,000 hectares).
Enonkishu is a research community conservancy with a structured grazing regime
to determine sustainable levels of cattle grazing balanced with conservation needs.
The area is monitored by a team of scientists, rangers, and volunteers who periodi-
cally perform transects of areas recording several biomonitoring parameters in five
1 m quadrats for each sampling site (Weaver 1918). This creates a dataset that has
been recording since 2014 with on average one record period per quarter, and this
was clipped to the date period that satellite imagery is available for. For each block
a total of 18 parameters was monitored for 6 years. Table 3 shows the most essential
parameters (Figs. 2 and 3).
Table 3 Biomonitoring parameters

Parameter Description Range
Biomass A measure of the total amount of harvestable grass Cont. distribution
Plant density The percentage of a sample that is plant matter 0–5 quantiles
Plant height The height of the plant out of maximum possible 0–5 quantiles
height
Leaf area The area of the sample which are leaves 0–5 quantiles
Plant young The percentage of the area where the plants are 0–5 quantiles
young
Plant mature The percentage coverage of mature plants 0–5 quantiles
Overgrazing Whether an area is overgrazed or not Binary
Fig. 2 Map of Enonkishu conservancy. The pins show the location of data collection sites in the
conservancy
3.3 Model Architecture
To tackle the problem of biomonitoring parameter estimation, we use the top-down

approach, proposed in the introduction, as depicted in Fig. 1. This approach first
identifies high-level properties of the region that we want to analyse, such as type of
land cover, and then uses them as an input to predict measurements (in our case
biomonitoring parameters) for each land cover type. Finally, we provide actionable
recommendations to farmers on resource optimisation, in this case cattle movement
across rangeland territory and preventing further land degradation from overgrazing.
Fig. 3 The photos show the examples of the data, collected from quadrats
Fig. 4 Habitat classification with semantic segmentation
3.3.1 Habitat Classification
First step is a high-level division of the region of interest into sub-types. To detect
different types of land cover, we built a semantic segmentation model for habitat
classification. In AI, sematic segmentation model is a computer vision tool that
allows to detect pixels of the image, which belong to the same class.
We downloaded Sentinel 2 12-band satellite imagery over the conservancy from
the start of available imagery (December 2016) until July 2020. These images were
then filtered to remove cloudy images, leaving a dataset of 123 images. Atmospheric
correction was then applied to produce images ready for data processing. The
images which were taken during the flooding period were masked out. To fill in the
gaps in the time series, linear interpolation techniques were used to interpolate
between preceding and consequent time slices. From 2 patches, randomly sampled
patches of 64 × 64 pixels, including all 12 bands, went into the input. Figure 4 below
shows a few examples of such classification.
We performed habitat classification using a U-NET model, trained on labelled

habitat masks (Ronneberger et al. 2015). The labelled class masks were created
using ground truth data and a geographic information system (GIS) expert for a total
of 11 labelled masks of 6 classes (agriculture, bare soil, forest, grassland, shrubland,
and water). For convenience, the data was split into two patches, with a separate
mask for each patch. Therefore, there were two masks for each class, with 1 mask
for water, since it was present only in 1 patch, but not the other, which resulted in
total of 11 masks.
3.3.2 Biomonitoring Parameter Estimation
For estimation of sub-tasks, we have used historical data, collected on the ground
and ESA Sentinel imagery data, downloaded for the same period (as described
above). A series of 20 different vegetation and moisture indices were calculated
from each image. At every sampling date from the biomonitoring dataset, the clos-
est satellite image was determined, and then the pixel values of all vegetation indi-
ces at the sampling locations were extracted.
A random forest model (Breiman 2001) was constructed for each biomonitoring
parameter, taking as an input the three vegetation indices which best correlate to that
parameter, the habitat type, and the season. The data was split into train and testing
data on an 80–20 split. Once the models were trained and validated, the vegetation
and habitat values from the entire conservation area were extracted from the satellite
image and predicted on. The resulting prediction was then reshaped back into the
shape of the conservancy providing a predicted map across the entire area of interest.
Overgrazing prediction was performed using the same dataset, but a time series
of four images was used for each prediction. A deep learning model uses an LSTM
autoencoder structure (Sutskever et al. 2014), where the input is a single pixel from
the image corresponding to the 20 vegetation indices plus the season that image was
taken in and the habitat type of the pixel, four of these corresponding to the four
most recent images are stacked, and the time series is the input of the LSTM at each
step. Due to overgrazing being a rare event, it was a minority class in the binary
classification model making up ~15% of observations; to prevent overfitting to the
majority class, synthetic data of the minority class was generated using Synthetic
Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) within the training data to bring it up
to a 0.5 ratio (Chawla et al. 2002). The model was then trained on this dataset until
binary cross-entropy error had converged and then tested on 20% of the data to
determine accuracy.
3.3.3 AI Model Results
Overall performance of the AI models was surpassed the state-of-the-art model per-
formance. On land cover segmentation task, we achieved 79% accuracy (training
loss, 0.32; validation loss, 0.1; test loss, 0.79), although the model showed some
confusion between the agricultural land with the bare soil. One possible explanation
to this is that for prolonged periods of time, the crop is harvested on the agricultural
area leaving it bare.
The biomass parameter was capable of being predicted with a very high accu-
racy. It had a training accuracy of 98% and a testing accuracy of 97% on biomass
measures that can range from 1000 to 2500. In general, the areas of grassland and
shrubland had higher biomass than forest areas, so for visualisation these were sepa-
rated into two separate images (Fig. 5). The parameters which are classified into 0–5
quantiles had varying accuracy depending on the parameter, due to the nature of it
being discrete ordinal classes error was generally around 0.5–1. Each parameter had
a different mean error and error distributions. Plant density estimation parameter is
described on Fig. 6.
Overgrazing is one of the most important parameters for the conservancy man-
agement, as it allows to make managerial decisions about moving cattle (mobile
bomas) around the conservancy. Overgrazing model prediction had a training accu-
racy of 98% with a validation accuracy of 92% validating on 5% of training data; on
the testing dataset, there was an overall accuracy of 86% with 84% accuracy of
overgrazed and 92% accuracy of non-overgrazed pixels. Overgrazing was predicted
across all grass and shrub areas creating a binary image of either overgrazed or not
overgrazed pixels (Fig. 7).
The proposed approach achieved better performance to similar studies. Previous
work has focused particularly on biomass estimation using imagery as this is the
primary feature of importance for determining sustainable grazing for livestock.
Previous studies created regression models including random forest regressions to
determine biomass and other plant health indicators. One study using high-resolution
0.5 m WorldView-2 imagery over rangelands in South Africa developed a random
model explaining 84% of variation (Ramoelo et al. 2015), while another model
using Sentinel 2 data on rangelands in Ethiopia achieved a similar accuracy of 0.87
(Meshesha et al. 2020). The model presented here outperforms both these studies
using the same or lower resolution imagery.
Such a good resulting accuracy indicates that the model can be applied for moni-
toring purposed in real-life applications. Since these measurements are not critical,
Fig. 5 Biomass estimation for grassland, shrublands, and forest land cover types
Fig. 6 Estimation of plant density across the rangelands. The colour coding shows the highest
vegetation areas as blue and the lowest as red, respectively
the resulting error can be neglecter, and the results can be used for the managerial
decisions on land. In this case, managerial decisions would be around managing the
land, moving the cattle, etc.
3.3.4 Decision Support Model
We summarise a model that will use the above-mentioned parameters to predict the
movement of the cattle in the region. We propose an AI method that will use the
inputs from the algorithms, described in the previous section, to suggest the sequence
of actions to maximise the usage of resources. In this case, it will be the next alloca-
tion of mobile bomas (cattle) (Fig. 8).
The inputs of the proposed model are the following:
Input Measurement (unit)

Habitat classification with0 to 5 depending on the type of the land surface (agriculture, bare
U-net semantic soil, forest, grassland, shrubland, and water). We move the cattle
segmentation model between blocks that combine a few types of the vegetation.
Therefore, we apply the
Biomass (yield) prediction Cont. distribution
Plant density 0–5 quantiles
Input Measurement (unit)

Plant height 0–5 quantiles
Leaf area 0–5 quantiles
Plant young 0–5 quantiles
Plant mature 0–5 quantiles
Overgrazing Binary (0/1)
Soil moisture Cont. distribution
Anomaly detection Binary (0/1) (whether there were anomalies or not)
Fig. 7 Overgrazing prediction. Red areas indicate the places with highest degrees of overgrazing
The manager needs to decide on whether to move cattle between the blocks and
where to move it. Therefore, a time series of the input features in the current week
should be considered for the meaningful prediction of cattle movement over the
next few weeks. The resulting decision should be transparent to a decision-maker;
therefore, we need to choose a tool that can provide an explanation of a recom-
mended decision. Therefore, our choice of the model included explainability
requirement.
This problem can be treated as a classical resource allocation problem. For this
problem, a variety of models was proposed in previous work, from dynamic pro-
gramming (Kamien and Schwartz 1991; Boyabatlı et al. 2019) to graph neural
Fig. 8 Model implementation for efficient resource allocation
networks (Cranmer et al. 2021). However, due to restricted amount of data, we uti-
lise fuzzy logic approach to resource allocation (Badinelli 2012).
4 Discussion
This technology narrows the gap between theoretical research in AI and space sec-
tors and practical business applications in agriculture. We have described above a
satellite imagery-based AI model, which was implemented in a browser-based
application. The conservancy management was able to obtain new predictions for
the whole conservancy on a weekly basis.
With the pressing need to balance natural resources, wildlife conservation and
human livelihood better monitoring of non-urban areas is critical. With satellite
imagery crucial monitoring becomes possible on a scale that may help to prevent
the further decline of nature. The methodologies presented here show that it is pos-
sible to perform automated monitoring of rangelands in an accurate and scalable
way. This allows for rapid and frequent insights into the condition of areas, includ-
ing their suitability for both grazing and nature conservation. Precision monitoring
allows for the creation of adaptable grazing regimes which alter how long each area
is grazed or which area to move grazing to depending on the condition of an area or
the surrounding areas. This can in turn be used to help maximise the use of an area
for both conservation and economic. While this technology has been tested and
applied on East African rangelands, the principles can be applied across numerous
areas. Within Africa the Sahel region on the edge of the Sahara Desert is expanding
at an alarming rate every year. Overgrazing by initially cattle and now goats has
caused large-scale erosion of soil and desertification (Picardi and Seifert 1977).
While there are actions already being taken to counteract (Kaptué et al. 2015) this
such as the green wall initiative (Picardi and Seifert 1977), there is still a large gap
in monitoring of it, and tools like this may be able to monitor and advice current or
future management plans. Beyond Africa there is currently large attention on large-
scale deforestation within the Amazon rainforest (Boëtsch et al. 2017; Shukla et al.
1990). Monitoring of the Amazon has been using similar tools (Tucker and
Townshend 2000; Brovelli et al. 2020; Werth and Avissar 2002), but applying them
for monitoring of the condition post-deforestation could allow for the reuse of
deforested areas with grazing schemes designed to prevent further deforestation.
Many general pasture settings such as meat or dairy cattle could benefit from preci-
sion grazing regimes to maximise the health of the livestock animals while
minimising the damage to the land. Understanding the health of grazable land is a
key component of sustainable agriculture.
4.1 Challenges and Economic Implications
One of the main bottlenecks in working with satellite imagery is the lack of data.
One of the most popular satellite constellations, European Space Agency (ESA)
Sentinel 2, provides weekly high-resolution imagery worldwide. However, the
imagery is accessible only from 2015 when the satellite was launched. At the same
time, labelling earth observation imagery is a manual process that requires expert
knowledge, and, therefore, it is very expensive. Both the lack of data and expensive
labelling make it difficult to build AI systems for satellite imagery.
Augmenting long-range datasets such as aerial and satellite imagery with manu-
ally collected high-resolution samples is a tedious task. Many state-of-the-art sys-
tems make use of publicly available materials and/or crowdsource data collection
tasks. Both are unavailable in the agriculture applications, where disturbances to the
fields must be kept minimal. Climate change makes weather patterns unpredictable.
Many plant communities are now experiencing rapid and significant changes in
temperature, rainfall, evaporation patterns, and a dramatic increase in the occur-
rence of extreme events. These changes in temperature and precipitation patterns
make the crops susceptible to disease (Burdon and Zhan 2020). Therefore, the
amount of monitoring necessary to support farmers and to counteract this variability
increases significantly. Currently, regular monitoring of large agricultural fields is
performed manually or with the help of drone or satellite imagery, which is then
assessed by an agricultural specialist. To automate these processes, we can use AI
models to predict yield, to monitor spread of disease, to understand overall vegeta-
tion health, to predict crop maturity, and to forecast harvest dates. However, to use
deep learning models, we need tools and people to enrich it so we can train, validate,
and tune AI models.
On the other hand, researchers demonstrate that successful scaling up of computer
vision-based models largely depends on data quantity and diversity (Abnar et al.
2021). In the domains such as medicine and earth observation, where we collect data
from multi-band sensors, data augmentation is an extremely difficult and resource-
consuming task (Efremova and Erten 2021). Therefore, it’s important to develop
methods for cheap and efficient data collection together with AI/EO approaches.
4.2 Economic Outcomes
The project was implemented and launched in 2019 as a browsed-based application.

Overall, we observed the following outcomes of the project. First, pasture/range-
land customers reduced spending due to economic downturn (COVID-19) and were
reluctant to use the projects that incurred additional costs. At the same time, remote
monitoring was essential to continue normal operations and decrease manual moni-
toring of the land by 50%. At the same time, the access to ground data was also
restricted. Despite these restrictions, the pretrained models continued to perform
similarly well in the new agricultural season. Second, overgrazing in the next grow-
ing season was reduced by analysing overgrazing patterns of the previous season by
10%. To be able to estimate the long-term economic potential of this product, we
need further two to three seasons of observations. Finally, the proposed tool (spe-
cifically the grassland, shrubland, and forest biomass estimation) was considered
useful to estimate the vegetation carbon stock over the conservancy and larger
Maasai Mara Region, and we continue conversations with rangeland management
on implementing such palpability in the region.
References
Abnar, S., M. Dehghani, B. Neyshabur, and H. Sedghi. 2021. Exploring the Limits of Large-Scale
Pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.02095.
Albert, A., J. Kaur, and M.C. Gonzalez. 2017. Using Convolutional Networks and Satellite Imagery
to Identify Patterns in Urban Environments at a Large Scale. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM
SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1357–1366.
Allred, B.W., M.K. Creutzburg, J.C. Carlson, C.J. Cole, C.M. Dovichin, M.C. Duniway, and
B. Zhou. 2021. Guiding Principles for Using Satellite-Derived Maps in Rangeland Management.
Rangelands. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rala.2021.09.004.
Ash, A., P. Thornton, C.R.S. Stokes, and C. Togtohyn. 2012. Is Proactive Adaptation to Climate
Change Necessary in Grazed Rangelands? Rangeland Ecology & Management 65 (6): 563–568.
Badinelli, R. 2012. Fuzzy Modelling of Service System Engagements. Service Science 4 (2):
135–146.
Bestelmeyer, B.T., Spiegal, S., Winkler, R., James, D., Levi, M., and Williamson, J. 2021.
Assessing sustainability goals using big data: collaborative adaptive management in the Malpai
Borderlands. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 77, 17–29.
Boëtsch, G., P. Duboz, A. Guissé, J.L. Peiry, D. Goffner, A. Niang, C. Diagne, L. Gueye, and
P. Sarr. 2017. Climate Change and Desertification in Africa: The Great Green Wall. In Cop 23:
Convention-Cadre Des Nations Unies Sur Les Changements Climatiques.
Bolo, P.O., R. Sommer, J. Kihara, M. Kinyua, S. Nyawira, and A.M.O. Notenbaert. 2019.
Rangeland Degradation: Causes, Consequences, Monitoring Techniques and Remedies.
Frontiers in Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.960345.
Boone, R.B., R.T. Conant, J. Sircely, P.K. Thornton, and M. Herrero. 2018. Climate Change
Impacts on Selected Global Rangeland Ecosystem Services. Global Change Biology 24 (3):
1382–1393.
Boyabatlı, O., J. Nasiry, and Y. Zhou. 2019. Crop Planning in Sustainable Agriculture: Dynamic
Farmland Allocation in the Presence of Crop Rotation Benefits. Management Science 65 (5):
2060–2076.
Breiman, L. 2001. Random Forests. Machine Learning 45 (1): 5–32.
Briske, D.D., L.A. Joyce, H.W. Polley, J.R. Brown, K. Wolter, J.A. Morgan, et al. 2015. Climate-
Change Adaptation on Rangelands: Linking Regional Exposure with Diverse Adaptive
Capacity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13 (5): 249–256.
Brovelli, M.A., Y. Sun, and V. Yordanov. 2020. Monitoring Forest Change in the Amazon Using
Multi-Temporal Remote Sensing Data and Machine Learning Classification on Google Earth
Engine. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 9 (10): 580.
Brown, J.R., and J. Thorpe. 2008. Climate Change and Rangelands: Responding Rationally to
Uncertainty. Rangelands 30 (3): 3–6.
Burdon, J.J., and J. Zhan. 2020. Climate Change and Disease in Plant Communities. PLoS Biology
18 (11): e3000949.
Burke, M., and D. Lobell. 2017. Satellite-Based Agricultural Yield and Poverty Measures. US
Agency for International Development, $1.8 Million, 2017–2020.
Chawla, N.V., K.W. Bowyer, L.O. Hall, and W.P. Kegelmeyer. 2002. SMOTE: Synthetic Minority
Over-Sampling Technique. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 16: 321–357.
Chen, L., Liu, L., Qin, S. et al. 2019. Regulation of priming effect by soil organic matter stability over
a broad geographic scale. Nat Commun 10, 5112. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13119-z
Cranmer, M., P. Melchior, and B. Nord. 2021. Unsupervised Resource Allocation with Graph
Neural Networks. NeurIPS 2020.
DANE. 2016. Use of Satellite Images to Calculate Statistics on Land Cover and Land Use. The
Group on Earth Observations.
———. 2017a. Applying Earth Observation Data to Monitor SDGs in Colombia: Towards
Integration of National Statistics and Earth Observations for SDG Monitoring in Colombia.
IAEG-SDGs Working Group on Geospatial Information: Draft Summary Report.
———. 2017b. Progress and Stride in the Integration of Statistical and Geospatial Information for
Sustainable Cities. The Group on Earth Observations.
Demir, I., K. Koperski, D. Lindenbaum, G. Pang, J. Huang, S. Basu, F. Hughes, D. Tuia, and
R. Raskar. 2018. Deepglobe 2018: A Challenge to Parse the Earth Through Satellite Images.
CVPR: 2018 abs/1805.06561. http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.06561. arXiv:1805.06561.
Di Stéfano, S., T. Fletcher, V. Jansen, C. Jones, and J.W. Karl. 2020. Rangeland Ecology &
Management Highlights. Rangelands 42 (5): 174–177.
Efremova, N., and E. Erten. 2021. Biophysical Parameter Estimation Using Earth Observation
Data in a Multi-Sensor Data Fusion Approach: CycleGAN. In IEEE International Geoscience
and Remote Sensing Symposium.
Efremova, N., D. West, and D. Zausaev. 2019. AI-Based Evaluation of the SDGs: The Case of
Crop Detection with Earth Observation Data. In AI for Social Good Workshop, ICLR 2019.
Eldridge, D.J., R.S. Greene, and C. Dean. 2011. Climate Change Impacts on Soil Processes in
Rangelands. In Soil Health and Climate Change, 237–255. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Herrero, M., J. Addison, C. Bedelian, E. Carabine, P. Havlík, B. Henderson, et al. 2016. Climate
Change and Pastoralism: Impacts, Consequences and Adaptation. Revue Scientifique et
Technique 35: 417–433.
Hoffman, T., and C. Vogel. 2008. Climate Change Impacts on African Rangelands. Rangelands
30 (3): 12–17.
Holechek, J.L., H.M. Geli, A.F. Cibils, and M.N. Sawalhah. 2020. Climate Change, Rangelands,
and Sustainability of Ranching in the Western United States. Sustainability 12 (12): 4942.
Houghton, R.A., J.I. House, J. Pongratz, et al. 2012. Carbon Emissions from Land Use and Land-
Cover Change. Biogeosciences 9 (12): 5125–5142. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-5125-2012.
Iino, S., R. Ito, K. Doi, T. Imaizumi, and S. Hikosaka. 2018. CNN-Based Generation of High-
Accuracy Urban Distribution Maps Utilising SAR Satellite Imagery for Short-Term Change
Monitoring. International Journal of Image and Data Fusion 9 (4): 302–318.
IPCC Climate Change. 2021. 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I
to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge/
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jamsranjav, C., M.E. Fernández-Giménez, R.S. Reid, and B. Adya. 2019. Opportunities to
Integrate Herders’ Indicators into Formal Rangeland Monitoring: An Example from Mongolia.
Ecological Applications 29 (5): e01899.
Jerven, M. 2019. Benefits and Costs of the Data for Development Targets for the Post-2015
Development Agenda. Data for Development Assessment Paper Working Paper.
Jones, M.O., Naugle, D. E., Twidwell, D., Uden, D.R., Maestas, J.D., and Allred, B.W. 2020.
Beyond inventories: emergence of a new era in rangeland monitoring. Rangeland Ecology &
Management, 73(5), 577–583.
Kamien, M.I., and N.L. Schwartz. 1991. Dynamic Optimization: The Calculus of Variations and
Optimal Control in Economics and Management. 2nd ed, 261. New York: Elsevier. ISBN
978-0-444-01609-6.
Kaptué, A.T., L. Prihodko, and N.P. Hanan. 2015. On Regreening and Degradation in Sahelian
Watersheds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (39): 12133–12138.
Kornberger, M., D. Pflueger, and J. Mouritsen. 2017. Evaluative Infrastructures: Accounting for
Platform Organization. Accounting, Organizations and Society 60: 79–95.
Lees, T., G. Tseng, S. Dadson, A. Hernandez, C.G. Atzberger, and S. Reece. 2020. A Machine
Learning Pipeline to Predict Vegetation Health, ICLR Workshop on Tackling Climate Change
with ML. arXiv:2003.10823.
McCollum, D.W., J.A. Tanaka, J.A. Morgan, J.E. Mitchell, W.E. Fox, K.A. Maczko, et al. 2017.
Climate Change Effects on Rangelands and Rangeland Management: Affirming the Need for
Monitoring. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 3 (3): e01264.
Meshesha, Derege Tsegaye, Muhyadin Mohammed Ahmed, Dahir Yosuf Abdi, and Nigussie
Haregeweyn. 2020. Prediction of Grass Biomass from Satellite Imagery in Somali Regional
State, Eastern Ethiopia. Heliyon 6 (10): 5272.
Miller, P., and M. Power. 2013. Accounting, Organizing, and Economizing: Connecting Accounting
Research and Organization Theory. The Academy of Management Annals 7 (1): 557–605.
Niamir-Fuller, M., C. Kerven, R. Reid, and E. Milner-Gulland. 2012. Co-existence of Wildlife and
Pastoralism on Extensive Rangelands: Competition or Compatibility? Pastoralism Research
Policy and Practice 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-2-8.
Picardi, A.C., and W.W. Seifert. 1977. A Tragedy of the Commons in the Sahel. Ekistics 43 (258):
297–304.
Polley, H.W., D.W. Bailey, R.S. Nowak, and M. Stafford-Smith. 2017. Ecological Consequences
of Climate Change on Rangelands. In Rangeland Systems, 229–260. Cham: Springer.
Popp, A., N. Blaum, and F. Jeltsch. 2009. Ecohydrological Feedback Mechanisms in Arid
Rangelands: Simulating the Impacts of Topography and Land Use. Basic and Applied Ecology
10 (4): 319–329.
Ramoelo, Abel, M.A. Cho, R. Mathieu, S. Madonsela, R. van de Kerchove, Z. Kaszta, and
E. Wolff. 2015. Monitoring Grass Nutrients and Biomass as Indicators of Rangeland Quality
and Quantity Using Random Forest Modelling and WorldView-2 Data. International Journal
of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 43: 43–54.
Reeves, M.C., K.E. Bagne, and J. Tanaka. 2017. Potential Climate Change Impacts on Four
Biophysical Indicators of Cattle Production from Western US Rangelands. Rangeland Ecology
& Management 70 (5): 529–539.
Riginos, C., L.M. Porensky, K.E. Veblen, W.O. Odadi, R.L. Sensenig, D. Kimuyu, et al. 2012.
Lessons on the Relationship Between Livestock Husbandry and Biodiversity from the Kenya
Long-Term Exclosure Experiment (KLEE). Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 2
(1): 1–22.
Rolnick, D., P.L. Donti, L.H. Kaack, K. Kochanski, A. Lacoste, K. Sankaran, and Y. Bengio. 2019.
Tackling Climate Change with Machine Learning. ACM Computing Surveys 55 (2): 1–96.
Ronneberger, O., P. Fischer, and T. Brox. 2015. U-net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical
Image Segmentation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and
Computer-Assisted Intervention, 234–241. Cham: Springer.
Rouse, J.W., R.H. Haas, J.A. Scheel, and D.W. Deering. 1974. Monitoring Vegetation Systems in
the Great Plains with ERTS. In Proceedings, 3rd Earth Resource Technology Satellite (ERTS)
Symposium, vol. 1, 48–62.
Schuman, G.E., H.H. Janzen, and J.E. Herrick. 2002. Soil Carbon Dynamics and Potential Carbon
Sequestration by Rangelands. Environmental Pollution 116 (3): 391–396.
Shukla, J., C. Nobre, and P. Sellers. 1990. Amazon Deforestation and Climate Change. Science
247 (4948): 1322–1325.
Singh, P., and N. Komodakis. 2018. Cloud-gan: Cloud Removal for Sentinel-2 Imagery Using
a Cyclic Consistent Generative Adversarial Networks, 1772–1775. https://doi.org/10.1109/
IGARSS.2018.8519033.
Sutskever, I., O. Vinyals, and Q.V. Le. 2014. Sequence to Sequence Learning with Neural
Networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 3104–3112.
Tucker, C.J., and J.R. Townshend. 2000. Strategies for Monitoring Tropical Deforestation Using
Satellite Data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 21 (6–7): 1461–1471.
Tyrell, P., S. Russel, and D. Western. 2017. Seasonal Movements of Wildlife and Livestock in
a Heterogeneous Pastoral Landscape: Implications for Coexistence and Community Based
Conservation. Global Ecology and Conservation 12: 59–72.
Weaver, J.E. 1918. The Quadrat Method in Teaching Ecology. The Plant World 21 (11): 267–283.
Wedding, L.M., M. Moritsch, G. Verutes, K. Arkema, E. Hartge, J. Reiblich, J. Douglass, S. Taylor,
and A.L. Strong. 2021a. Incorporating Blue Carbon Sequestration Benefits into Sub-national
Climate Policies. Global Environmental Change 69: 102206.
Wedding, L., M. Moritsch, G. Verutes, K. Arkema, E. Hartge, J. Reiblich, and A. Strong. 2021b.
Incorporating Blue Carbon Sequestration Benefits into Sub-national Climate Policies. Global
Environmental Change 2021: 102206.
Werth, D., and R. Avissar. 2002. The Local and Global Effects of Amazon Deforestation. Journal
of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 107 (D20): LBA-55.
Artificial Neural Networks Predict
Sustainable Development Goals Index
Seyed-Hadi Mirghaderi
Abstract The Sustainable Development Goals Index is an important index for

measuring the movements toward sustainable goals. However, many indicators are
needed for computing the index. This chapter aims to operationally show that for
tackling the problem of the high number of indicators, artificial intelligence tech-
niques may provide contributions. This chapter uses a combination of two famous
techniques, including artificial neural networks and genetic algorithms. So, 288
indicators of 127 countries from 7 global reports were extracted, and the collinear
and ineffective ones were removed. Finally, 90 indicators remained. A combination
of genetic algorithms and artificial neural networks tried to find the best subset of
remained indicators that provide a simple system for predicting Sustainable
Development Goals Index. The results revealed that artificial neural networks with
just four nodes and indicators include “Deaths from infectious diseases,” “ICT use,”
“Expenditure on education,” and “Assessment in reading, mathematics, and sci-
ence” can predict sustainable development index with an accuracy rate of 97%. This
chapter also validates the role of innovation in meeting Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) and uncovers the insignificant role of environmental indicators in the
Sustainable Development Goals Index.
Keywords Sustainable Development Goals Index · Artificial neural network ·

Genetic algorithm · Feature selection · Global reports
S.-H. Mirghaderi (*)

Department of Management, School of Economics, Management, and Social Sciences, Shiraz
University, Shiraz, Iran
424 S.-H. Mirghaderi
1 Introduction
Sustainable development (SD) refers to intergenerational equity and aims to opti-

mize the consumption subject to support the needs of future generations (Keeble
1988). SD has three pillars, including environmental, social, and economic, which
are interconnected (Brusseau 2019). SD has gradually received tremendous atten-
tion from academicians, politicians, business people, and economists (Omri 2020)
due to the reveals of urgency in some global environmental issues (Elliott 2012),
which lead to the international consensus on 17 Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) for a better future. The agreement on SDGs was approved by all 193 mem-
bers of Unite Nations (Sachs et al. 2017) and provides a basis for systematic and
coordinated actions to shape a sustainable future in the global village (Costanza
et al. 2016).
Global goal setting for tackling the world challenges in environmental, social,
and economic aspects is the underlying reason for SDGs (Leal Filho 2020). Despite
the excellent reason, the progress toward the SDGs is a problematical issue (Xu
et al. 2020) that needs to be addressed. Although the UN Statistical Commission has
proposed Sustainable Development Goals Index (SDGI), including 230 indicators
for assessing the development toward the SDGs (Schmidt-Traub et al. 2017), there
are many SDGI measuring problems, such as lack of systematic methods (Xu et al.
2020), lack of valid data (Schmidt-Traub et al. 2017), complicated interrelationship
among SDGs (Costanza et al. 2016), and ignoring the uncertainty in SDGs (Ruiz-
Morales et al. 2021). Therefore, proposing a simple alternative method for predict-
ing SDGI is valuable for practitioners and academicians. For simplifying the SDGI
prediction, we need a small number of suitable indicators selected from a pool of
indicators (Hák et al. 2016) presented in global reports.
Global reports consist of indicators and indices which aim to pave the way for
sustainable development (Shaker 2018). Although there are some indexes for sus-
tainability, it is hard to draw an clear big picture of sustainability through them
(Iddrisu and Bhattacharyya 2015). Furthermore, there is no single index that is
widely adopted by scientists and politicians (Strezov et al. 2017). However, there is
a wide range of indicators with collected data in global reports which attract
researchers for reusing them to create sustainable measurement systems; examples
of such approach were used by Iddrisu and Bhattacharyya (2015); Strezov et al.
(2017); and Shaker (2018). Creating a SD measurement system using this approach
needs to address a specific problem, that is, selecting a list of suitable indicators.
The indicators must contribute to producing an efficient and noncomplicated SD
measurement or prediction system.
The selection of indicators (or variables) is a well-known optimization problem
in the artificial intelligence (AI) field (Alweshah et al. 2020), which encompass a
wide range of proposed methods (George 2000) from statistical techniques (Borah
et al. 2014) to heuristic search algorithms (Gnana et al. 2016) to neural networks
(Chakraborty 1999). Also, prediction is applicable using several AI techniques
Artificial Neural Networks Predict Sustainable Development Goals Index 425
(Collins and Moons 2019), such as artificial neural networks (ANNs) and genetic
algorithm (GA).
ANNs are one of the well-known techniques of AI that are inspired by the human
brain (Okwu and Tartibu 2021), and GA is a metaheuristic algorithm inspired by the
biological evolution of creatures (Mirjalili 2019). It seems that ANN and GA are
useful for finding suitable indicators to create a system for predicting the SDGI
values. In other words, the problem of too many indicators and hard-to-calculate
SDGI may be tackled by using a combination of ANNs and GA.
The organization of the remaining parts is as follows. Sections 2, 3, and 4 pro-
vide a brief review of SDGI, ANN, and GA, respectively. Section 5 presents the
research method and Sect. 6 provides the results of the research. Finally, the conclu-
sion is presented in Sect. 7.
2 Sustainable Development Goals Index (SDGI)
In September 2000, 147 developing countries agreed on Millennium Development

Goals (MDGs) to prove their commitment against global challenges such as hunger,
poverty, disease, shelter-less people, and exclusion while enhancing environmental
sustainability, gender equality, and education (Sachs and McArthur 2005). Based on
the agreement, they set eight goals for the period between 2000 and 2015. The goals
are (1) eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; (2) achieve universal primary educa-
tion; (3) promote gender equality and empower women; (4) reduce child mortality;
(5) improve maternal health; (6) combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases; (7)
ensure environmental sustainability; and (8) develop a global partnership for devel-
opment (Kroll 2015).
At the expiration time of MDGs, in September 2015, all UN members for the
period 2015–2030 agreed on 17 goals (Kroll 2015): (1) no poverty; (2) zero hunger;
(3) good health and well-being; (4) quality education; (5) gender equality; (6) clean
water and sanitation; (7) affordable and clean energy; (8) decent work and economic
growth; (9) industry, innovation, and infrastructure; (10) reduced inequality; (11)
sustainable cities and communities; (12) responsible consumption and production;
(13) climate action; (14) life below water; (15) life on land; (16) Peace, justice and
strong institutions; and (17) partnerships to achieve the goals (UN 2021).
SDGs are broader and more complex than MDGs. They are interrelated (Costanza
et al. 2016), which cover the environmental, social, and economic aspects of SD
(Allen et al. 2019). As Berglund and Gericke (2016) stated, SD as a complicated
concept is not measurable unless it is broken down into specific global indicators.
As Fig. 1 shows, SDGI has four layers. To measure the SDGI, 169 targets and 232
indicators were developed in 2019 (Barbier and Burgess 2019). But the number of
indicators was decreased to 115 in 2020 (Sachs et al. 2020). Although the targets
and indicators help monitor the status quo of countries (Alaimo et al. 2021), there
are some critics regarding the high amount of indicators, the interrelationship
between goals, missing values of indicators, etc.
Fig. 1 Pyramid of
SDGI. (Source: Reyers
Goals
et al. 2017)
Targets
Indicators
Observations
In recent years, researchers have tried to resolve the critics and propose modifi-
cations in SDGI. For example, Xu et al. (2020) proposed a measurement system for
quantifying the progress of china in SDGs. The system encompasses 119 indicators
divided into 17 SDGs. Horan (2020) introduced a new version of SDGI based on
interrelations between targets. It is argued that the new SDGI helps communicate
with different stakeholders to undertake an integrated execution method for imple-
menting SDG. Ruiz-Morales et al. (2021) proposed a new way for aggregating the
value of each SDG using ordered weighted average (OWA) and prioritized OWA to
encompass the uncertainty of SDGs. Bali Swain and Yang-Wallentin (2020) quanti-
fied and prioritized SDGs and their relations to SD to provide suggestions for coun-
tries to improve their SDGI by focusing on different aspects of SD.
3 Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs)
A significant part of artificial intelligence is ANNs (Wu and Feng 2018) which
attract much attention from the 1980s (Wu and Feng 2018). The idea of ANNs was
inspired by nervous system biology in the human body, which consists of a network
of neurons named neural network. The network is an interconnected web of tremen-
dous neurons which parallel process the collected data (Mishra and Srivastava 2014)
to solve a specific problem (Abiodun et al. 2018), especially when the network is
dense as in a human brain. In the brain, chemical reactions produce signals which
play an essential role in controlling brain activities and creating a basis for learning
(Russell and Norvig 2021). Based on a hypothesis, the learning process occurs at
the connection points of two neurons when the connection intensity differs (Wu and
Feng 2018).
Scientific attempts for modeling nervous system operation by mathematical for-
mulation resulted in ANNs (Sivanandam and Deepa 2006). Although ANNs try to
imitate the brain function, it has not been approached to capture the brain complex-
ity. But there are two significant similarities between the brain and ANNs; both are
constructed from highly interconnected simple computational elements (neurons),
and the network function is determined by neurons connections (Hagan et al. 2016).
In ANNs, each connection between neurons is denoted by a number named weight
Fig. 2 Simple Neuron in

ANNs. (Source: Aggarwal
2018)
(Wang 2003). The weight scales each input to a neuron and affects the function
inside the neuron (Fig. 2) (Aggarwal 2018).
The weights are dynamically adjusted based on processing the specific inputs
and the difference between actual and desired output (Floridi 2002). The weight
updating process is the essence of learning (Ding et al. 2013) which can uncover the
patterns in data and predict outputs often better than many statistical tools (Paliwal
and Kumar 2009). Due to the capability of ANNs in solving the problems such as
clustering, pattern recognition, and prediction in nonlinear and complex systems,
the application of ANNs has expanded in many disciplines such as engineering,
medicine, agriculture, mining, business, finance, arts, technology, etc. (Abiodun
et al. 2018). In general, ANNs succeeded in providing high accuracy results for the
problems in many disciplines (Gue et al. 2020).
Similar to other disciplines, sustainability has also taken advantage of ANNs. For
example, Antanasijević et al. (2013) developed a model for predicting PM10 emis-
sions at the national level. Gue et al. (2020) performed a critical review on utilizing
ANNs in contributing SD. The study revealed that SDGs 6, 7, 11, and 12 have used
more of ANNs. Also, the utilization includes modeling and predicting. Emmanuel
et al. (2020) proposed a design of the neural network-based system for predicting
the first six SDGs in less developed countries using patterns in big data.
4 Genetic Algorithm (GA)
GA was introduced by John Holland in the 1960s as an optimization algorithm. It

was inspired by evolution in nature (Moriarity 2021). Evolution, as Charles Darwin
(1859) discovered, is based on “survival of the fittest”; that means adapted creatures
to the environment survive more rather than others. The fittest creature will have a
higher chance to live and reproduce the next generation (Badar 2021), while the
unfitted ones have less chance. The survival of the best is the principle of the evolu-
tion process (Sivanandam and Deepa 2008). As Kramer (2017) stated, evolution is
a fruitful optimization process that can be seen in creatures. They utilize evolution-
based strategies to produce near-optimal solutions for solving complicated prob-
lems (Moriarity 2021).
Fig. 3 GA procedure.
(Source: Badar 2021)
GA uses a simulated evolution process to find near-optimal solutions (Badar

2021) in an iterative process through three biological-inspired operators named
selection, crossover, and mutation (Katoch et al. 2021). Selection refers to choosing
a certain number of current solutions for producing the next generation. Crossover
means creating new solutions by combining existing solutions. The mutation is used
to generate a different solution by manipulating the current solution. The selection
operator has several methods, i.e., elite replacement (copy the best solution to the
next generation as it is) and roulette wheel selection (selecting based on the proba-
bilities related to the fitness function, i.e., the better solution has more chance to
select) (Badar 2021). A technique for implementing crossover is the random respect-
ful crossover which preserves the similarity of current solutions and randomly
selects different points to create new solutions (Umbarkar and Sheth 2015). Mutation
techniques try to explore the search space and increase the diversity of solutions
(Moriarity 2021). It is implemented using methods such as randomly selecting a
solution and changing a random point of it. The procedure of GA is presented
in Fig. 3.
GA is a metaheuristic search algorithm that is flexible and attractive with many
applications (Kramer 2017). Due to this capability, GA is the most implemented and
researched metaheuristic with vast related published variants (Badar 2021).
Nowadays, GA is a part of many applications in the artificial intelligence field
(Moriarity 2021) to create methods that mimic and even do better than human intel-
ligence (Kramer 2017).
5 Method
This chapter aims to create a simple model for predicting SDGI based on ANNs. To
this end, a reverse pyramid method was used by following six steps include:
• Step 1: data gathering from the seven related global reports
• Step 2: data cleaning
• Step 3: handling missing values
• Step 4: handling collinear indicators
• Step 5: removing ineffective indicators
• Step 6: finding the best combination of indicators
By following the introduced steps, the research activities were conducted. The
details of each step are presented in the following subsections.
• Step 1: data gathering
Some official and open-source reports are needed to create a pool of indicators.
The best sources of indicators and their values are global reports. Table 1 shows the
information of reports that are used in forming the required indicator pool.
The underlying logic of selecting reports is the relationship of the report to the
triple bottom line of SD. It is expected that each report reflects at least one of the
sustainable development pillars; for example, EPI is related to the environmental
pillar, while HDI, PF, and SPI are more related to the social pillar and EF and DB
refer to the economic pillar. It is assumed that GII can be related to all pillars. Due
to the research process, if the abovementioned assumptions are not correct, it cannot
negatively affect the research results. Also, the way for more research is open by
selecting other or more reports.
• Step 2: data cleaning
The reports generally provide information based on a hierarchal structure of vari-
ables. They compact operational indicators to create high-level ones. Based on the
goal of this research, the operational indicators were collected from each report. In
Table 1 Selected reports for data extraction

Report Source
Environmental Performance Index https://epi.yale.edu/downloads/epi2020report20210112.pdf
(EPI)
Human Development Index (HDI) http://hdr.undp.org/en/2020-report
Personal freedom (PF) www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2020
Social Progress Index (SPI) www.socialprogress.org/index/global/results
Economic Freedom (EF) www.heritage.org/index/download
Doing Business (DB) www.doingbusiness.org/en/reports/global-reports/
doing-business-2020
Global Innovation Index (GII) www.globalinnovationindex.org/analysis-indicator
sum, 288 indicators were extracted from the reports. Table 2 shows the number of
extracted indicators.
There is an operational indicator in GII which reflects the overall result of EPI. To
have more homogenous indicators, this indicator was removed from the list. Also,
only 127 countries were covered in all the mentioned reports; therefore, just their
information was extracted from the publishing reports for the year 2020 and was
organized in a database.
• Step 3: handling missing values
Approximately 1 percent of the database was not filled due to lacking informa-
tion in the reports. In other words, there were missing values in the database. By
using the global closest fit approach, the missing values of countries were replaced
by the most similar country using Manhattan distance criteria:
dij cik c jk
kS
where i and j are denoted for two countries, S represents a set of non-missing indica-
tors in country i and j, and ck is denoted for kth indicator.
All missing values are filled in using the mentioned method. Finding the most
similar country for a country with missing value was a repetitive process. That is,
after filling each missing value, the most similar country for the next missing value
was found based on the sum of Manhattan distance between the country and other
countries. The country with the minimum sum of distances is the similar one in
which the missing value was filled by the indicator value of the similar country.
• Step 4: removing collinear indicators
The variance inflation factor (VIF) is a measure for finding collinear variables.
Based on Algorithm 1, the indicators with higher VIF are iteratively and step-by-
step removed. The remaining indicators have lower VIF and then are not collinear.
Algorithm 1: Removing Collinear Indicators

1: Input data of 288 indicators
2: Calculate the VIF of each indicator
3: While max(VIF) ≥ 5
4: Remove vector of the indicator with maximum VIF
5: Recalculate the VIF of each indicator
6: End
7: Show remained indicators
VIF is computed using the following formula:
1
VIFi
1 Ri2
Table 2 Number of indicators extracted from each report

Report Number of operational indicators
Environmental Performance Index (EPI) 32
Human Development Index (HDI) 4
Personal Freedom (PF) 34
Social Progress Index (SPI) 50
Economic Freedom (EF) 42
Doing Business (DB) 47
Global Innovation Index (GII) 79
Total 288
where i is denoted for a selected indicator and Ri2 represents the coefficient of deter-
mination for the indicator i. The higher the VIF value represents the more collinear-
ity. As Larose (2015) acknowledged if VIFi ≥ 5,then the collinearity is moderate.
Therefore, to avoid collinearity, we can remove the indicators with the VIF greater
than 5 as mentioned in Algorithm 1. Applying the Algorithm caused to finding 135
collinear indicators, then the total number of remaining indicators decreased from
288 to 153.
• Step 5: removing ineffective indicators
Some indicators are not effective for participation in predicting SDGI. Therefore,
just indicators must be used as input variables which can play an essential role in
predicting SDGI by improving the performance of ANNs. The problem of finding
the best subset of indicators in this research is an instance of a well-known typical
problem in the literature named “feature selection” or “variable selection.” There
are several methods for producing solutions to the variable selection problem. But
De et al. (1997) propose an ANN-based method that uses feature quality index
(FQI) as a criterion for ranking variables. The underlying logic of the method is
attractive and straightforward; if a variable is not essential, removing it must not
harm the result of the network. In other words, if the presence of a variable does not
result in better performance, the variable is ineffective and must be removed.
Algorithm 2 was designed based on the mentioned logic. It compares the mean
Algorithm 2: Pseudocode of Removing Ineffective Indicators

1: Final_List = Ø
2: For i = 1 to 300
3: List = {all remained indicators}
4: While List has no change do:
5:
Randomly partition indicators to contain 20 indica-
tors in each sub-set
6: For each sub-set
7: Run ANN and save MSE

8: For j = 1 to 20
9:
Put a vector of zero instead of indicator
j in the sub-set
10: Run ANN and save MSE_without_j
11: IF MSE_without_j ≤ MSE
12: Remove indicator j from the List
13: End
14: End
15: End
16: End
17: Add List to Final_List and make it unique
18: End
19: Remove duplicates from Final_List
square error (MSE) of an ANN output when a specific variable is present and when
its values are replaced by a vector of zero.
To remove all ineffective variables, Algorithm 2 repetitively ran, while the input
indicators were the remaining indicators of the previous run. Figure 4 shows the
results of ten runs of the Algorithm. Finally, 63 ineffective indicators were found.
Therefore, the number of final indicators decreased from 153 to 90.
• Step 6: finding the best combination of indicators
Fig. 4 Reduction of indicators using Algorithm 2

Although 90 indicators are effective in predicting SDGI, a simple predicting sys-

tem must have a small number of input variables, while being capable of predicting
the target values with a reasonable error. Therefore, it is necessary to select a subset
of indicators that play the role of inputs for ANNs. It is expected that a simple ANNs
design must have limited nodes. In this research, the limitation of nods is set to 20,
that is, the number of nodes in ANNs is equal to or less than 20.
Testing from 1 to 20 nodes in ANNs may help to decide about the best number
of nodes. It implies that combinations of 1 to 20 from 90 indicators must be tested.
The total number of combinations is more than 7 × 1019. The number of combina-
tions is huge, and testing all of them is an energy- and time-consuming activity,
while a good local solution may meet the need. Therefore, instead of testing all
combinations, a genetic algorithm (GA) is used to find a reasonable solution. The
GA is embedded in a repetitive ANN algorithm. Algorithm 3 shows this approach in
more detail.
Algorithm 3: Pseudocode of Combination of ANN and GA

1: Input data of 90 indicators of 127 countries
2: Set parameters of GA such as number of generations, selec-
tion rate, crossover rate, and mutation rate
3: For N = 1 to 20 //N denote for the number of nodes
in ANN//
4: Generate a population of set-indicators (each set-

indicator consist of L indicators)
5: For i = 1 to number of generation
6: For k = 1 to number of population
7: For r = 1 to 11
8:
Run ANN with N nodes using kth set-indicator
in population as input
9:
Save RMSE, MAPD, and CorrelCoeff of each ANN
in Performance(r)
10: End
11: P(k) = median(Performance)
12: End
13: Sort the population by RMSE in P and save the Best

set-indicator
14:
Apply selection operator to form a part of
new_population
15:
Apply crossover operator to form another part of
new_ population
16:
Apply mutation operator to form the final part of
new_ population
17: population = new_ population
18: End
19: Show and save Best set-indicator and related Performance
for the Node = N
20: End
Fig. 5 Convergence plot of GA
Fig. 6 Performance of ANN with different number of nodes
The GA used in this research encompasses 200 generations with 50 solutions in

each generation. The elite replacement, crossover, and mutation rate are set to 0.1,
0.5, and 0.4, respectively. The fitness function is the root mean square error (RMSE)
of related ANN. To ensure the robustness of the algorithm output, the ANN ran 11
times, and the median of the RMSEs was reckoned as the value of the fitness
function. The selection operator was the roulette wheel, and the crossover method
was the random respectful technique. For crossover, three ways were designed: (1)
random selection from unused indicators in a selected solution, (2) random selec-
tion from indicators that have not emerged in the current solutions, and (3) ran-
domly replacing an indicator in the current selection with a new one. Figure 5 shows
the convergence plot of the GA for an ANN with four nodes (indicators). For sim-
plicity, the iteration is limited to 50.
The result of running Algorithm 3 is shown in Fig. 6. The figure reveals that with
only four nodes, the correlation between the predicted SDGI and real SDGI is more
than 0.95, and on average, there is less than 3% error in predicting the SDGI of each
country.
6 Results
The results revealed that among 288 indicators extracted from the selected global
reports, just 90 indicators are helpful for predicting SDGI using ANNs. Although
more indicators provide better prediction, to keep the simplicity, an ANN with four
nodes in one hidden layer can predict SDGI with high accuracy. In the ANN, each
node is related to one indicator. The most suitable indicators for predicting SDGI
are “Deaths from infectious diseases,” “ICT use,” “Expenditure on education,” and
“Assessment in reading, mathematics, and science.” Using these indicators, the
ANN can forecast the SDGI with mean absolute percentage deviation (MAPD)
equals 2.9126%, RMSE equals 2.4763, and the correlation between the predicted
values and SDGI is 0.9592. The results show that designed ANN is a successful
predictor for SDGI.
Other combinations of the indicators are also able to predict the SDGI. Table 3
represents some of the combinations. Although the higher the number of nodes
produces better performance, the complication of ANN will also increase by adding
more nodes.
Table 3 shows that many indicators belong to the Global Innovation Index report.
It implies the role of innovation in facilitating the movement toward SDGs and
increasing the value of SDGI for countries. Another astonishing fact in the table is
the poor emergence of indicators from the EPI, which reports the environmental
status. When we can predict SDGI without indicators from the environmental
aspect, it means that maybe there is a bias in SDGI. The bias may be occurred due
to the insufficient attention to environmental goals in calculating SDGI or under-
mining the environmental issues in profit of social and or economic issues. This is
an interesting topic for further research.
Table 3 Input(s) and performance of ANN

Number of
nodes Indicators Source RMSI MAPD Correlation
1 ICT use GII 4.006 4.5694 0.8860
2 Deaths from infectious diseases SPI 3.2868 3.8320 0.9253
GERD performed by business enterprise GII
ICT use GII
Assessment in reading, mathematics, GII
and science
ICT use GII
Expenditure on education GII
and science
ICT use GII
and science EF
Judicial independence
ICT use GII
and science GII
Venture capital deals GII
Utility model applications by origin
ICT use GII
and science GII
Venture capital deals EPI
SNM.new EF
Hiring and firing regulations
ICT use GII
Child stunting SPI
and science GII
Patent applications by origin GII
ISO 14001 environmental certificates GII
ICT services imports
(continued)
Table 3 (continued)
Number of
nodes Indicators Source RMSI MAPD Correlation
ICT use GII
Child stunting SPI
and science EF
Government investment PF
Women’s Movement GII
Political and operational stability EPI
FGT.new
ICT use GII
and science SPI
Women with advanced education GII
ISO 9001 quality certificates GII
ICT services imports PF
Access to foreign newspapers DB
Paying taxes-time (hours) GII
Employment in knowledge-intensive
services
7 Conclusions
This chapter explored seven global indexes, including Environmental Performance

Index (EPI), Doing Business (DB), Global Innovation Index (GII), Economic
Freedom (EF), Personal Freedom (PF), Social Progress Index (SPI), and Human
Development Index (HDI). The indexes provide 288 operational indicators from the
social, economic, and environmental aspects of 127 countries. The collinear and
ineffective indicators were removed in two separate steps. From the 90 remaining
indicators, artificial neural networks (ANNs) could yield outstanding results using
just a combination of four indicators include “Deaths from infectious diseases,”
“ICT use,” “Expenditure on education,” and “Assessment in reading, mathematics,
and science.” The designed ANN creates a simple model for predicting Sustainable
Development Goals Index (SDGI) and avoids the complicated computation of many
indicators.
This research also uncovered two facts behind SDGI. First, GII indicators play a
prominent role in predicting SDGI. This finding can validate the role of innovation
in meeting SDGs and propose to search for solutions to sustainable development
problems through innovation. Second, the role of environmental indicators in calcu-
lating SDGI is neglectable. Because we succeed in predicting SDGI while ignoring
environmental indicators, the SDGI is not relying on environmental indicators, or
maybe the role of other aspects is bolder than the environmental aspect. Clarifying
the bias in SDGI needs more research. This research also opens the door for using
other global reports and indicators to develop another prediction system for SDGI
to measure the progress toward SGDs.
References
Abiodun, Oludare Isaac, Aman Jantan, Abiodun Esther Omolara, Kemi Victoria Dada, Nachaat
AbdElatif Mohamed, and Humaira Arshad. 2018. State-of-the-Art in Artificial Neural Network
Applications: A Survey. Heliyon 4 (11): e00938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00938.
Aggarwal, Charu C. 2018. Neural Networks and Deep Learning. Springer 10: 978–973.
Alaimo, Leonardo Salvatore, Alberto Arcagni, Marco Fattore, and Filomena Maggino. 2021.
Synthesis of Multi-indicator System Over Time: A Poset-based Approach. Social Indicators
Research 157 (1): 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02398-5.
Allen, Cameron, Graciela Metternicht, and Thomas Wiedmann. 2019. Prioritising SDG Targets:
Assessing Baselines, Gaps and Interlinkages. Sustainability Science 14 (2): 421–438. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0596-8.
Alweshah, Mohammed, Saleh Al Khalaileh, Brij B. Gupta, Ammar Almomani, Abdelaziz
I. Hammouri, and Mohammed Azmi Al-Betar. 2020. The Monarch Butterfly Optimization
Algorithm for Solving Feature Selection Problems. Neural Computing and Applications.
Antanasijević, Davor Z., Viktor V. Pocajt, Dragan S. Povrenović, Mirjana Đ. Ristić, and Aleksandra
A. Perić-Grujić. 2013. PM10 Emission Forecasting Using Artificial Neural Networks and
Genetic Algorithm Input Variable Optimization. Science of the Total Environment 443:
511–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.10.110.
Badar, Altaf QH. 2021. Evolutionary Optimization Algorithms.
Bali Swain, R., and F. Yang-Wallentin. 2020. Achieving Sustainable Development Goals:
Predicaments and Strategies. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World
Ecology 27 (2): 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1692316.
Barbier, Edward B., and Joanne C. Burgess. 2019. Sustainable Development Goal Indicators:
Analyzing Trade-Offs and Complementarities. World Development 122: 295–305. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.05.026.
Berglund, Teresa, and Niklas Gericke. 2016. Separated and Integrated Perspectives on
Environmental, Economic, and Social Dimensions – An Investigation of Student Views on
Sustainable Development. Environmental Education Research 22 (8): 1115–1138. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1063589.
Borah, Pallabi, Hasin A. Ahmed, and Dhruba K. Bhattacharyya. 2014. A Statistical Feature
Selection Technique. Network Modeling Analysis in Health Informatics and Bioinformatics 3
(1): 55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13721-014-0055-0.
Brusseau, M.L. 2019. Chapter 32 – Sustainable Development and Other Solutions to Pollution and
Global Change. In Environmental and Pollution Science, ed. Mark L. Brusseau, Ian L. Pepper,
and Charles P. Gerba, 3rd ed., 585–603. Academic Press.
Chakraborty, Basabi. 1999. Feature Selection by Artificial Neural Network for Pattern
Classification. In Pattern Recognition in Soft Computing Paradigm, 95–109.
Collins, Gary S., and Karel G.M. Moons. 2019. Reporting of Artificial Intelligence Prediction
Models. The Lancet 393 (10181): 1577–1579. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30037-6.
Costanza, Robert, Lew Daly, Lorenzo Fioramonti, Enrico Giovannini, Ida Kubiszewski, Lars
Fogh Mortensen, Kate E. Pickett, Kristin Vala Ragnarsdottir, Roberto De Vogli, and Richard
Wilkinson. 2016. Modelling and Measuring Sustainable Wellbeing in Connection With the
UN Sustainable Development Goals. Ecological Economics 130: 350–355. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.07.009.
De, Rajat K., Nikhil R. Pal, and Sankar K. Pal. 1997. Feature Analysis: Neural Network and Fuzzy
Set Theoretic Approaches. Pattern Recognition 30 (10): 1579–1590. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0031-3203(96)00190-2.
Ding, Shifei, Hui Li, Su Chunyang, Yu Junzhao, and Fengxiang Jin. 2013. Evolutionary Artificial
Neural Networks: A Review. Artificial Intelligence Review 39 (3): 251–260. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10462-011-9270-6.
Elliott, Jennifer. 2012. An Introduction to Sustainable Development. Routledge.
Emmanuel, Okewu, M. Ananya, Sanjay Misra, and Murat Koyuncu. 2020. A Deep Neural
Network-Based Advisory Framework for Attainment of Sustainable Development Goals 1-6.
Sustainability 12 (24): 10524. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410524.
Floridi, Luciano. 2002. Philosophy and computing: An introduction. Routledge.
George, Edward I. 2000. The Variable Selection Problem. Journal of the American Statistical
Association 95 (452): 1304–1308. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2000.10474336.
Gnana, D. Asir, S. Appavu Antony, Alias Balamurugan, E. Jebamalar, and Leavline. 2016.
Literature Review on Feature Selection Methods for High-Dimensional Data. International
Journal of Computer Applications 136 (1): 9–17.
Gue, Ivan Henderson V., Aristotle T. Ubando, Ming-Lang Tseng, and Raymond R. Tan. 2020.
Artificial Neural Networks for Sustainable Development: A Critical Review. Clean Technologies
and Environmental Policy 22 (7): 1449–1465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01883-2.
Hagan, M.T., H. Demuth, M. Beale, and O. De Jesus. 2016. Neural Network Design. 2nd ed.
Lexington.
Hák, Tomáš, Svatava Janoušková, and Bedřich Moldan. 2016. Sustainable Development Goals:
A Need for Relevant Indicators. Ecological Indicators 60: 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2015.08.003.
Horan, David. 2020. National Baselines for Integrated Implementation of an Environmental
Sustainable Development Goal Assessed in a New Integrated SDG Index. Sustainability 12
(17): 6955. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176955.
Iddrisu, Insah, and Subhes C. Bhattacharyya. 2015. Sustainable Energy Development Index: A
Multi-Dimensional Indicator For Measuring Sustainable Energy Development. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 50: 513–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.032.
Katoch, Sourabh, Sumit Singh Chauhan, and Vijay Kumar. 2021. A Review on Genetic Algorithm:
Past, Present, and Future. Multimedia Tools and Applications 80 (5): 8091–8126. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11042-020-10139-6.
Keeble, Brian R. 1988. The Brundtland Report: ‘Our Common Future’. Medicine and War 4 (1):
17–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/07488008808408783.
Kramer, Oliver. 2017. Genetic Algorithms. In Genetic Algorithm Essentials, 11–19. Springer.
Kroll, Christian. 2015. Sustainable Development Goals: Are the rich countries ready? Bertelsmann
Stiftung Gütersloh, Germany.
Larose, Daniel T. 2015. Data Mining and Predictive Analytics. Wiley.
Leal Filho, Walter. 2020. Viewpoint: Accelerating the Implementation of the SDGs. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 21 (3): 507–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJSHE-01-2020-0011.
Mirjalili, Seyedali. 2019. Genetic Algorithm. In Evolutionary Algorithms and Neural Networks:
Theory and Applications, 43–55. Cham: Springer.
Mishra, M., and M. Srivastava. 2014. A View of Artificial Neural Network. 2014 International
Conference on Advances in Engineering & Technology Research (ICAETR – 2014), 1–2
Aug. 2014.
Moriarity, Sean. 2021. Genetic Algorithms in Elixir: Solve Problems Using Evolution. Pragmatic
Bookshelf.
Okwu, Modestus O., and Lagouge K. Tartibu. 2021. Artificial Neural Network. In Metaheuristic
Optimization: Nature-Inspired Algorithms Swarm and Computational Intelligence, Theory and
Applications, 133–145. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Omri, Anis. 2020. Technological Innovation and Sustainable Development : Does the Stage of
Development Matter? Environmental Impact Assessment Review 83: 106398. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106398.
Paliwal, Mukta, and Usha A. Kumar. 2009. Neural Networks and Statistical Techniques: A Review
of Applications. Expert Systems with Applications 36 (1): 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2007.10.005.
Reyers, Belinda, Mark Stafford-Smith, Karl-Heinz Erb, Robert J. Scholes, and Odirilwe
Selomane. 2017. Essential Variables help to focus Sustainable Development Goals monitor-
ing. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26-27: 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cosust.2017.05.003.
Ruiz-Morales, Betzabe, Irma Cristina Espitia-Moreno, Victor G. Alfaro-Garcia, and Ernesto
Leon-Castro. 2021. Sustainable Development Goals Analysis with Ordered Weighted Average
Operators. Sustainability 13 (9): 5240. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095240.
Russell, Stuart, and Peter Norvig. 2021. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. 4th ed.
Pearson.
Sachs, J.D., and J.W. McArthur. 2005. The Millennium Project: A Plan For Meeting the
Millennium Development Goals. The Lancet 365 (9456): 347–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0140-6736(05)17791-5.
Sachs, Jeffrey D, Guido Schmidt-Traub, Christian Kroll, Guillaume Lafortune, Grayson Fuller,
and Finn Woelm. 2020. Sustainable Development Report 2020.
Sachs, Jeffrey, Guido Schmidt-Traub, Christian Kroll, David Durand-Delacre, and Katerina
Teksoz. 2017. SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2017. New York: Bertelsmann Stiftung and
Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN).
Schmidt-Traub, Guido, Christian Kroll, Katerina Teksoz, David Durand-Delacre, and Jeffrey
D. Sachs. 2017. National baselines for the Sustainable Development Goals assessed in the SDG
Index and Dashboards. Nature Geoscience 10 (8): 547–555. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2985.
Shaker, Richard Ross. 2018. A Mega-Index for the Americas and Its Underlying Sustainable
Development Correlations. Ecological Indicators 89: 466–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2018.01.050.
Sivanandam, S.N., and S.N. Deepa. 2008. Genetic Algorithms. In Introduction to Genetic
Algorithms, 15–37. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
———. 2006. Introduction to Neural Networks Using Matlab 6.0. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
Strezov, Vladimir, Annette Evans, and Tim J. Evans. 2017. Assessment of the Economic, Social
and Environmental Dimensions of the Indicators for Sustainable Development. Sustainable
Development 25 (3): 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1649.
Umbarkar, Anant J., and Pranali D. Sheth. 2015. Crossover Operators in Genetic Algorithms: A
Review. ICTACT Journal on Soft Computing 6 (1).
UN. 2021. Envision2030: 17 Goals to Transform the World for Persons with Disabilities. Accessed
13 Oct 2021. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/envision2030.html.
Wu, Yu-chen, and Jun-wen Feng. 2018. Development and Application of Artificial Neural
Network. Wireless Personal Communications 102 (2): 1645–1656. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11277-017-5224-x.
Xu, Zhenci, Sophia N. Chau, Xiuzhi Chen, Jian Zhang, Yingjie Li, Thomas Dietz, Jinyan Wang,
Julie A. Winkler, Fan Fan, Baorong Huang, Shuxin Li, Wu Shaohua, Anna Herzberger, Ying
Tang, Dequ Hong, Yunkai Li, and Jianguo Liu. 2020. Assessing Progress Towards Sustainable
Development Over Space and Time. Nature 577 (7788): 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41586-019-1846-3.
Sailing the Data Sea to Advance Research
on the Sustainable Development Goals
Andy Spezzatti, Elham Kheradmand, Kartik Gupta, Marie Peras,

and Roxaneh Zaminpeyma
Abstract The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the framework adopted
by the global community to encourage taking actions on the multiple challenges
facing the world today to ensure environmental protection, health and well-being,
and economic prosperity. This framework provides a detailed list of indicators that
are interconnected and cover a holistic view on sustainable development. The goals
were defined by the United Nations General Assembly in 2015 and expected to be
achieved by 2030. Since the release of this agenda, the research community has
begun to intensify work in these areas, yet these efforts seem to be relatively limited.
This is especially true about the employment of data and artificial intelligence (AI),
which are not widely engaged in SDG-related topics. The AI-based research on
SDGs and further developments depends heavily on the availability and accessibil-
ity of related real-world data collected by the community. However, there is no
central, structured, and holistic database of datasets and metadata associated with
the SDGs, which prevents large-scale collaboration on these topics. In this paper,
we present the SDG Data Catalog, a global open-source database indexing SDG-
related datasets, associated metadata, and research networks. We describe the con-
struction of this catalog, which relies on state-of-the-art natural language processing
A. Spezzatti (*)
AI for Good Foundation, Geneva, Switzerland
E. Kheradmand
University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
K. Gupta
University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
M. Peras
AgroParisTech, Paris, France
R. Zaminpeyma
McGill University, Montreal, Canada
442 A. Spezzatti et al.
models with human supervision. The catalog breaks down data silos and helps sus-
tainability researchers navigate the data sea to initiate effective collaborations.
Keywords Natural language processing · Open data · Sustainable development ·

Natural language understanding · Named entity recognition
1 Introduction
In the summer of 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

released its latest report on climate change (Masson-Delmotte et al. 2021). It con-
cludes with a high degree of confidence that human influences are causally con-
nected to recent warming observations and climate variability. It also provides a
good description of what we can expect over the next few decades if we follow
current trends: rising sea levels, more frequent floods and droughts, and decreasing
Arctic ice. The report demonstrates the need to change the way our society operates
and the urge to curb emissions and mitigate the negative outcomes that are currently
projected. It also offers a big challenge to the world as a lot of these changes may
not be reversible and may occur sooner than expected; hence, there is an urgent need
for a global collaboration on sustainable development. On the other hand, the adop-
tion of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the United Nations in 2015
caused a significant growth in the number of scientific publications on sustainable
development. As a result, more than 31% of research outputs on this topic over the
period of 2000 to 2017 have been published after 2015 (Bautista-Puig et al. 2021).
The United Nations’ 17 SDGs are implemented and organized into different catego-
ries to progress toward global sustainable plans, policies, and future.1 All SDG cat-
egories tackle world issues such as ending poverty, ensuring gender equality, and
climate change, and they all work in conjunction with other SDGs.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has been a growing research field in the last decades,
impacting and shaping an increasing number of industries, and actively used by the
global research community. According to the Artificial Intelligence Index Report
2021 (Zhang et al. 2021), the number of AI publications grew 34.5% from 2019 to
2020 (vs 19.6% the year before) (Fig. 1). The trend is visible in every region of the
world, and in 2020, the COVID-19 crisis demonstrated how the AI research com-
munity can be mobilized on an important topic. Despite these trends, the AI com-
munity only marginally contributes to the sustainable development research, and
from the IPCC report that referenced scientific papers from several decades, very
few of them were using AI infrastructure. Using a consensus-based expert
1
The 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development. Retrieved October 27, 2021 from https://sdgs.un.
org/goals
Sailing the Data Sea to Advance Research on the Sustainable Development Goals 443
Fig. 1 Percent of ArXiv publications related to artificial intelligence, between 2004 and 2018.
(Zhang et al. 2021)
elicitation process, a group of researchers evaluated the impact AI can have on all
17 global goals (Vinuesa et al. 2020). Their conclusion shows that for a majority of
the 169 targets (79%), AI may act as an enabler, while a smaller number of them
(35%) may also experience negative impact from the development of AI. For some
targets, AI can be both beneficial and detrimental, as is the case for Target 1.1,2 for
which AI will help better identify places of poverty, but at the same time, it can
automate some of low-skilled jobs and increase existing inequalities. Although AI
cannot solve all problems and poses certain risks and challenges, if accompanied by
a set of common principles and regulations, it could substantially aid in achieving
the SDGs and transform our capacity to counteract negative patterns that may
become irreversible without prompt action.
Nowadays, a major barrier to cross-industry collaboration is the lack of easy
access to many datasets that are essential for solving society’s current challenges. In
the research community, it is appreciated to make the data publicly available, yet
this is not a common practice. The availability of data not only helps other research-
ers create new AI models on the datasets but also gives them a reference to compare
the models on the same datasets with the literature review. Researchers may have
incentive not to disclose their datasets, which might be for two reasons; the data is
a strategic advantage either for them or for fear of having the quality of their work
questioned. However, even if the datasets are not accessible, just knowing the exis-
tence of them would help researchers initiate a collaboration with the owners of
datasets. Some publicly available datasets tend to be generic or only samples that
2
Target 1.1 By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as
people living on less than $1.25 a day.
are not representative of the actual research fields. In general, most published
AI-related research in major conferences use common datasets, such as ImageNet,3
CONLL 2003 (Sang and De Meulder 2003), or Wikibooks.4 Therefore, it is crucial
to bring more awareness to the AI community about the datasets no matter whether
they are publicly available or not, especially in the sustainability domain.
Our work builds on the open data movement, whose goal is to make data visible,
accessible, and usable.5 Open data will help to unlock the value of the enormous
amount of information collected and stored around the world. As information
becomes increasingly dispersed and voluminous, it is tedious for researchers to
identify relevant data. The 2020 Open Data Report shows that progress is being
made, with researchers more aware of the FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility,
Interoperability, and Reuse) and more willing to make data sharing a priority today
than they were 3 years ago (Khodiyar et al. 2021). Preliminary data showed that
reuse of research data is increasing from pre-COVID-19 levels.
The goal of this work is to create a system that automatically identifies, collects,
and describes datasets that are relevant to the global goals, to do so at scale, and to
support researcher access this information. While there are a few platforms aggre-
gating sustainability related datasets, like the Humanitarian Data Exchange,6 the
coverage remains limited with certain goals missing and the important context and
usability assessment is often also missing. There are also other, broader platforms
that index datasets not limited to sustainability domains. This is the case of the
Paper with Code7 platform that references more than 5 K dataset that have been used
in AI research papers, as well as the Google Dataset Search. The first one covers
only several goals but misses many important topics related to the SDGs, such as
poverty or hunger, which do not produce any results. The second platform is more
comprehensive, but the datasets are not clearly linked to the global goals and tar-
gets, and the impact and influence of the referenced datasets are often unclear. In
order to obtain a comprehensive coverage of datasets used in sustainability research
and to retrieve metadata and contextual information, we decided to extract informa-
tion directly from published raw research papers, based on the assumption that in
order to be published; a paper must provide a sufficient level of dataset description.
The SDG Data Catalog is an open, extensible, global database containing dataset
names, metadata, and research networks related to the SDGs (Hodson and Spezzatti
2021). The catalog will be open-sourced, to be accessible by the research commu-
nity in order to encourage collaboration across domains and different disciplines.
The catalog indexes datasets that are directly mentioned in research publications. In
order to structure and classify the knowledge gathered about the datasets, we use
metadata information from the research articles and datasets. Some of this metadata
3
https://www.image-net.org/
4
https://en.wikibooks.org/
5
The State of Open Data 2020, Digital Science Report.
6
The Humanitarian Data Exchange, https://data.humdata.org/
7
Paper with Code, https://paperswithcode.com/
includes the impact of the publication, research topics, methods used, and informa-
tion about the results and conclusion of the published work using the data. In this
way, we can inform researchers about trends in datasets usage and the current major
research questions being addressed using a particular dataset. With the SDG Data
Catalog, we strive to provide a tool that helps bridge the gap between SDG experts
and the rest of the research community.
AI and more specifically natural language processing (NLP) facilitate automat-
ing the extraction and detection of certain information from large volumes of text.
In particular, NLP has a major role in identifying SDGs in text data. For instance,
NLP has been utilized to predict if the business and activities of companies are
aligned with SDGs (Amel-Zadesh et al. 2021). The alignment was identified by
analyzing the corporate sustainability reports of companies. In another research,
SDG Social Index was developed by applying NLP on social media text data (Lee
and Kim 2021). This index shows the global opinions toward SDGs.
In this paper, we propose an NLP-based methodology to detect dataset names
and information on research papers and link them with each specific SDG. In a
previous work (Hodson and Spezzatti 2021), the key elements of the pipeline were
described, as well as the data acquisition strategy. Early results for the named entity
recognition (NER) model were presented. We used NER to identify several entities
related to the datasets: names, owner, description, attributes, and samples. We had
various performances on these entities with an 80% F1 score and 72% recall for the
dataset name identification. In this work, we develop further the SDG Data Catalog
and make a link between the datasets and SDGs. We present new parsing and selec-
tion strategies, in addition to how fine-tuning a pre-trained Bidirectional Encoder
Representations from Transformers (BERT) (Devlin et al. 2018) model further
improves the performance of the NER model, achieving 91% recall and 82% F1
score. We also train a bidirectional long−/short-term memory (Bi-LSTM) with
Conditional Random Field (CRF) model (Huang et al. 2015) with Global Vectors
for Word Representation (GLOVE) (Pennington et al. 2014) embedding that over-
score BERT on precision with an 88% score. Moreover, we develop a binary classi-
fier to predict the existence of dataset names. Ultimately, we show preliminary
results on dataset classification by SDGs, using a few-shot learning strategy with the
Open AI Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3 (GPT-3) model (Brown et al. 2020)
with various performances across the global goals. Eventually, these preliminary
results demonstrate that with more data, the model can achieve good performance
on paper categorization.
2 Information Extraction
Extracting mentions of datasets in research articles is a challenging task because of

the variability in the format used by authors. Datasets are not always explicitly
cited; sometimes only a short description is included, and when they are, there is no
single convention for doing so. For example, the Modified National Institute of
Standards and Technology hand-written digit dataset, a well-known dataset in the

computer vision field, is frequently referred to with the acronym MNIST dataset.
Similarly, the Global Hunger Index, a dataset published each year by the International
Food Policy Research Institute, is frequently referred with its acronym, for example,
the 2022 GHI dataset for this year. Therefore, it is important to make a link between
these entities.
In our experiment, we observed that several types of datasets can be identified
across papers. First, datasets with a clearly identified name, which means that they
are referenced in the paper, are usually in a data section. These are usually large-
scale datasets that are publicized and can be found in multiple papers (e.g., 2021
GHI). On the other hand, there are datasets which are specifically created for the
purpose of the experiment described in the paper. These are typically in the form of
a survey or scientific measurements. This last category of datasets is the most diffi-
cult to identify. Here, we focus on the detection of the first category by leveraging
AI. Identifying the second category of datasets can be done using a NER on dataset
description, but this methodology is not explored in this paper.
The frequency of dataset mentions varies by research area and thus by SDG
domains. Some areas rely heavily on quantitative outcomes, such as “decent work
and economic growth” (SDG 8) and “good health and well-being” (SDG 3), and it
was easier to extract training data from these papers. For other goals, such as “life
on earth” (SDG 15), “life below water” (SDG 14), or “peace, justice, and strong
institutions” (SDG 16), data was much sparser, and we had to specifically extract
additional articles in these areas to rebalance our models.
A large span of information extraction (IE) research has been published over the
last couple of years. Rule-based methodologies have been widely used (Iwai et al.
1989) for metadata extraction. Various machine learning systems have also been
proposed for data mining and association mining, including Conditional Random
Field (Shuxin et al. 2013), support vector machines (Kern et al. 2012), and deep
learning models (Marinai 2009). Our work leverages several machine learning strat-
egies, at different steps of the pipeline, in order to extract information and structure
them, as explained on Fig. 2.
Fig. 2 SDG data catalog pipeline. The red boxes represent a step where machine learning models
are implemented
For the NER task, three model architectures dominate recent research, convolu-
tional neural network (CNN), long−/short-term memory (LSTM) models and trans-
formers. The two last achieved state-of-the-art results on the most common NER
datasets, for example, on CONLL 2003 and Ontonotes v5. These are the ones we
use in our experiment on NER.
3 Data
For the purpose of this work, we use a 10 K large corpus of papers. The papers were
collected from online sources using a web scraper that is scalable, lightweight, and
copyright-aware. The scraper leverages the data on author and paper titles from the
Open Academic Graph project (Sinha et al. 2015) and uses a web search endpoint
to identify instances of PDF files corresponding to a query for the title and authors.
The resulting list was reviewed as being all self-published versions of academic
works, falling under standard copyright protections and not under paywall academic
aggregators.
In order to have a balanced dataset large enough for classification by SDGs, we
extracted an additional 2000 sample of papers. Indeed, the original 10 K papers
were unevenly distributed across SDGs, and a few goals were not even present. We
needed additional data for about half of the SDGs. Our approach was to use another
web scraper that specifically targets certain SDGs. The basis of this scraper is to
make a search on open-access repositories of PDF papers. We started with the ArXiv
portal, which provides access to 2 M scholarly articles. We were eventually limited
by the scope of the portal that is specialized in Physics, Mathematics, Computer
Science, Finance, Economics, and Electrical Engineering. A few SDG topics were
not covered like gender, justice, poverty, or hunger. Therefore, we also used two
other portals, the CORE, a global-wide content aggregation of open-access research
literature (Knoth et al. 2012), and the Education Resources Information Center
(ERIC) portal. The first one aggregates more than 200 M papers, on diverse topics,
and provides an API to extract full text PDF automatically using keyword search.
However, we were limited by the number of API calls available in a day by the plat-
form. The ERIC portal provides access to 1.5 M publications, focused on education
research.
Using a keyword search in these portals, the top 100 valid PDF results of each
search are downloaded and saved to our second corpus. The success rate of the
extraction process was 83% for papers that had a PDF version downloadable. After
combining the two corpora (12 K papers), the resulting distribution across the goals
was improved but still not evenly distributed, with a couple of goals that are still
marginally represented.
4 Methodology
In the development of the SDG data catalog, we first extract paper metadata and
body text and split the text into paragraphs. After parsing the papers, in order to link
SDGs with dataset names, we define three tasks: (1) binary classification to predict
if a dataset is mentioned, (2) NER which detects the name of datasets, and (3) text
classification to predict the SDGs. The binary classifier is trained to identify the
existence of dataset mentions in paragraphs and generate a smaller set of candidate
paragraphs for the NER annotations. Using NER models, we aim to extract the
name of datasets from the paragraphs. We annotate the generated candidates manu-
ally. The annotations are added incrementally using an active learning strategy. We
identify the SDGs by training models on annotated text data. For this task, we anno-
tate each papers’ abstract to different SDGs and train a multi-label text categoriza-
tion model. In Fig. 2, we present a pipeline to visualize the steps we consider in the
SDG data catalog development.
The training dataset used for binary classification is unbalanced, with negative
examples significantly outnumbering the positive ones. In the original data, less
than 10% of the paragraphs contain a mentioned dataset. To get around this prob-
lem, we add an under-sampling layer that rebalances our dataset. After under-
sampling, the resulting proportion of paragraphs with no mention is 56.8%.
4.1 Parsing Papers
We used the CERMINE Java library (Tkaczyk et al. 2015) to process full texts and
parsed references for the PDF files. CERMINE uses support vector machine classi-
fiers to divide papers into zones and then to further classify them into various meta-
data classes. The machine learning-based solution offers great flexibility on paper
layouts and an important variety of extracted metadata, including DOI, affiliation,
and year of publication, not always found in other systems like PDFX8 and GROBID9
(Lopez 2009). These metadata will be critical in designing the catalog and connect-
ing entities in a knowledge graph. Overall, we found that the quality of the extracted
text is superior with CERMINE compared to other off-the-shelf python packages
available. Using CERMINE, we were able to process 93% of the papers from our
initial database.
From the resulting XML documents, we extract metadata, including authors,
abstracts, titles, affiliation, and DOI. The body text is broken down into paragraphs.
While sentence granularity was considered too short to provide the full context for
the model to correctly and efficiently identify the dataset reference and the section
granularity was considered too long, the paragraph is a good compromise to obtain
8
https://pypi.org/project/pdfx/
9
https://github.com/kermitt2/grobid
sequences with sufficient contextual information. Then, in order to reduce noises in

the data and have a more targeted annotation effort, we select candidate paragraphs
using a binary classification model.
4.2 Binary Text Classification
The binary classification step is added to generate a relevant set of candidate para-
graphs and make the NER annotation process more efficient. In a previous work
(Hodson and Spezzatti 2021), we used the inclusion of the word “data” in para-
graphs as a proxy for candidates and focused our annotation effort only on these
paragraphs. While this method has already importantly reduced the number of can-
didates, we found that mentions of datasets were present in less than 20% of the
candidates, requiring us to spend an important amount of time on annotation in
order to obtain a good number of dataset names. To circumvent this problem, we
trained a binary classification model to generate the list of candidates.
The binary classification task is a multistep process that involves creating a
labelled dataset, data cleaning, and model development. First, paragraphs from the
extracted PDFs are arranged in table rows, with each row containing one paragraph.
A list of known dataset label names is used to label paragraphs with either a 1 or 0
based on the presence of dataset names from the list. Results for this labelling task
are summarized in (Table 2). This dataset is then processed for removal of stop
words from the Natural Language Toolkit (NLTK) corpus (Loper and Bird 2002),
numbers, non-ASCII characters, and symbols.
Vectorizing the text is a practical technique in NLP which makes the text under-
standable for machines. For the binary classification, we use TF-IDF which stands
for term frequency-inverse document frequency (Ramos 2003). TF-IDF considers
both the frequency of each word of a term and the relevancy and importance of each
word of a term in a document. It is a product of term frequency (which measures the
frequency of the word in a document) and inverse document frequency (which mea-
sures the importance of the word by giving more weight to rare words in a term with
respect to the document).
After vectorizing each paragraph, we trained and compared machine learning
algorithms, such as support vector machine (SVM), logistic regression (LR), naive
Bayes (NB), and random forest (RF). The performance of these models using
TF-IDF vectorizer is presented in Table 4. We also tried XLNet, a generalized
autoregressive pre-training for language understanding, which is state of the art in
the text categorization task (Yang et al. 2019). A random split function is used to
randomly allocate data for training, validation, and test categories. Several machine
learning models are developed to accomplish this task. Each model had its own
parameters for this split. For instance, for the XLNet model, we consider 70% for
training, 15% for validation, and 15% for the test set. However, for the other mod-
els, we split the data to allocate 85% of data for training and 15% of data for testing
the models. With this practice, we test all the models on 15% of the data.
4.3 Named Entity Recognition (NER)
From the candidate paragraphs, we manually annotated the dataset names in an

initial set of 1 K using the Prodigy annotation tool.10 We train an NER model on this
set, based on a CNN architecture from the Spacy NLP library.11 We then used uncer-
tainty sampling with beam search workflow to correct the entities for which the
model is most uncertain about. This strategy helps to quickly improve the model
performances by guiding him toward the most important information in the dataset.
In this process, we progressively improved the F1 score of our model and created a
5 K large annotated training set focused on dataset name identification.
After building a robust training set of annotations, we compared two alternative
approaches for the NER, Bi-LSTM with Conditional Random Field (CRF) and fine-
tuning a pre-trained BERT model. Both approaches are inspired by the recent litera-
ture on NER and the performances of these models on standard datasets.
In addition to the dataset names, a few other entities corresponding to datasets’
metadata are also annotated: description, owner, samples, attributes, methods, and
results. The prediction of these entities is not in the scope of this paper.
4.3.1 Bidirectional LSTM with CRF
LSTM networks have been introduced to get around the long-term dependency
problem encountered when using recurrent neural networks (RNN) (Hochreiter
et al. 1996). With the use of gates to either add or forget information, LSTM can
leverage information from words located several sentences ahead in the text. A
Bidirectional LSTM is a model composed of two LSTMs: one that takes the input
in the forward direction and the other that takes it in the backward direction. This
increases the contextual information used by the model compared to a simple
LSTM. The CRF layer is used to jointly decode the labels in each sequence.
Our NER problem is framed as a sequence tagging task, using the BILUO
scheme for tag representation (Table 1), in which the entities are tagged with the
semantic category preceded by one of the defined prefixes. The 5 K set of annota-
tions is split into an 85% training set and 15% test set that is used to report the
results. We train our model using 300-dimensional word-embedding features trained
on the CommonCrawl dataset with the Global Vectors for Word Representation
(GLOVE) (Pennington et al. 2014). We used two of the embeddings: one with
400 K vocabulary size and the other with 1.9 M vocabulary size. We use two
10
Montani, I. & Honnibal, M (a new annotation tool for radically efficient machine teaching.
Artificial intelligence, Prodigy, 2018). Prodigy is an annotation software powered by active learn-
ing used to make data annotation more efficient and convenient. It supports different types of
machine learning problems such as classification and named entity recognition.
11
Honnibal, M., & Montani, I. (2017). spaCy 2: Natural language understanding with Bloom
embeddings, convolutional neural networks and incremental parsing.
recurrent network layers of 100 dimensions and optimize using the ADAM opti-
mizer (Kingma et al. 2014). The two models were trained on four epochs and used
a 0.05 learning rate.
4.3.2 BERT
Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) (Devlin et al.

2018) is a transformer model trained in a self-supervised way on a large corpus of
English data on Wikipedia and BookCorpus. The base model is composed of 110 M
parameters and the large one with 340 M parameters; in this paper we use the BERT
base model. The large size of the training corpus and the complexity of the model
allowed it to learn the inner representation of the language and to be an excellent
base model for fine-tuning on multiple different natural language processing tasks,
such as NER. Since the publication of its first paper, different versions of BERT
have appeared at the top of model rankings for their state-of-the-art performances.
The same dataset is used as for the Bi-LSTM CRF model. We used the BERT base
uncased pre-trained model that is fine-tuned on five epochs with a 5e-5 learning rate.
Using BERT and a transfer learning methodology had several advantages in our
case. First, the model benefits from the pre-trained data and already understands the
English language before the fine-tuning step; this makes it able to learn with much
less data points. In addition, BERT is built with transformers that are nonsequential
and use self-attention, making it very good in using long dependencies across mul-
tiple sentences, required for our identification of dataset names.
4.4 Classification by SDGs
We classified research papers by the main topic they cover, using a text categoriza-
tion model with 18 classes: the 17 global goals and a label to specify that no SDGs
are among the main topics of the publication. Since we only wanted to identify main
topics, our approach was to only use the article’s abstract to make the prediction.
The abstract generally covers why the research was initiated and what methodolo-
gies and results are developed in the paper. We assumed that this should provide
enough contextual information to identify when one or more of the global goals are
studied and discussed later in the paper.
Table 1 BILUO scheme used for the NER on dataset name

Tags Description
B-DATASET_NAME The first token of a multi-token entity
I-DATASET_NAME An inner token of a multi-token entity
L-DATASET_NAME The final token of a multi-token entity
U-DATASET_NAME A single-token entity
0 A non-token entity
A set of 2000 abstracts was manually annotated, using the Prodigy software.
To make the annotation effort more efficient, a list of keywords was used for
each SDGs that are used as a proxy to suggest an abstract to annotate. For
example, for SDG 1 (end poverty) keywords such as “unemployment,” “dispari-
ties,” “microfinance,” and “poverty” were used. A few abstracts were ambiguous
or not clear on whether the paper was actually covering a given goal. There were
also some general science abstracts that could be misinterpreted as SDG 3
(health) but were not actually discussing this SDG in their contents. These
examples were rejected, and we only used abstracts with good clarity on what
goals were covered.
From the manual annotations, we trained a multi-label supervised text cate-
gorization model. Multi-label text categorization is a type of classifiers used to
organize text documents into multiple non-mutually exclusive classes. Our
training set was unevenly distributed across SDGs and composed of 1700 exam-
ples (300 being left in the test set), and a third of the goals had too little data to
produce any result. Data availability is a barrier that can prevent NLP models
from performing well, but recent developments in NLP have shown that this
limitation can be solved using a technique known as few-shot learning (FSL). In
FSL, a small sample of training data is provided to the model that needs to make
reliable predictions with only limited information. FSL usually works well on
large pre-trained language models. We used the Open AI GPT-3 (Generative
Pre-trained Transformer) (Brown et al. 2020) model, a third-generation, autore-
gressive language model that leverages deep learning to generate human-like
texts. GPT-3 uses 175 billion parameters, which make it one of the largest lan-
guage models available today. This expensive computational approach makes
this model versatile and good for a wide range of NLP tasks, including text
categorization. This model is especially useful when the training data is a little,
and most other machine learning methodology fail to perform well.
To use the pre-trained GPT-3 model, we leverage the API that Open AI
released in early 2020. Following GPT-2 which was initially not publicly
released to prevent potential harm from misuse of its powerful architecture, this
API was released to control potential harmful use of the model, such as spam-
ming or harassment. The API provides access to three different versions of the
model: “ada,” “babbage,” “curie,” and “davinci.” “Ada” is the fastest and cheap-
est model, which can perform well on simple classification tasks, “babbage” and
“curie” can perform more nuanced tasks and perform better on more compli-
cated tasks, and, finally, “davinci” is the largest (175 billion parameters), most
powerful, longest to train, and most expensive of the available models. In this
study, we used the “ada” version, as we try to validate the ability of the model
to learn with a limited amount of available data. In the future, some of the more
powerful models can be tested.
5 Results and Discussion
5.1 Parsing Papers
We parsed 12 K PDFs using CERMINE. Success rate is summarized on Table 2.

The variability of the layouts of the papers included in our corpus explains the limi-
tation of the extraction methodology.
5.2 Binary Text Classification
As shown in Table 3, the dataset used for training and testing of the binary classifi-
cation is highly imbalanced and favored the “0” class examples, which meant that a
dataset label name was not present in the paragraph. This was detrimental to binary
classifier performance. We used random under-sampling to remove majority class
(“0”) examples until there was greater parity between the “0” class and “1” class.
Several machine learning models with different word representations and one
deep learning model, XLNet, are compared for the binary text classification. The
results are presented in Table 4. XLNet shows the best performance, with 95%
recall on non-interesting paragraphs and 92% precision on the interesting ones. The
TF-IDF with RF shows comparable performance. For this step, we are most inter-
ested in having a high precision in identifying paragraphs with dataset mentions,
which make the two models mentioned above great candidate generation models,
capable of discarding the majority of useless paragraphs (95% for XLNet), without
losing many interesting ones. XLNet is the model that is used to generate the candi-
dates that are used for the NER annotations.
Table 2 Success rate in the extraction of metadata from the 10 k corpus of papers
Authors Abstract Titles Affiliations
0.93 0.91 0.96 0.80
Table 3 Dataset imbalance and random under-sampling. Positive class examples refer to
paragraphs where the dataset label name is present and labelled as a “1” for binary classification
Total Positive class Ratio of positive class/total
paragraphs examples (“1) paragraph
Original dataset random 31,248 2281 7.3%
under-sampling 5281 2281 43.2%
Table 4 Binary text classifier with different types of models. We tested support vector machines,
logistic regression, naive Bayes, and random forest in combination with TF-IDF. XLNet results are
also shown
Recall Precision F1 score Accuracy
0 1 0 1 0 1
TF-IDF/SVM 0.92 0.75 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.80 0.85
TF-IDF/LR 0.93 0.67 0.80 0.86 0.86 0.75 0.82
TF-IDF/NB 0.93 0.66 0.80 0.87 0.86 0.75 0.82
TF-IDF/RF 0.94 0.73 0.83 0.89 0.88 0.80 0.85
XLNet 0.95 0.75 0.83 0.92 0.88 0.79 0.86
Table 5 Comparison of precision, recall, and F1 scores results on the test set for the three NER
models trained
Model Precision Recall F1
GLOVE 400 k voc + Bi-LSTM CRF 0.78 0.60 0.68
GLOVE 1.9 M voc + Bi-LSTM CRF 0.88 0.74 0.80
BERT base uncased 0.75 0.91 0.82
5.3 Named Entity Recognition
We compared our results on dataset names NER across the different models used.
The metrics used to evaluate performances are precision, recall, and F1 score. For
this work recall has a particular importance as the goal is to be able to retrieve as
many dataset’s mentions as we can, knowing that we can always clean the extracted
list afterward.
The main results of our experiments are presented on Table 5. Using a word
embedding with a larger vocabulary size improves by 14% the recall score and by
12% the F1 score. We trained our models on 8 CPUs. The BERT architecture was
longer to train, requiring 350% more time to train on the same dataset with the same
number of epochs and batch size, compared to the LSTM with GLOVE 1.9 M
embedding. With the Bi-LSTM we obtain an 80% F1 score with a good precision
but a limited recall below 75%.
The BERT base uncased fine-tuned model, while showing a lower precision
score than the Bi-LSTM CRF, outperformed it on F1 and more importantly on
recall, which is our metrics of interest. With 82% F1 and 91% recall, the results
demonstrate the capability of the model to retrieve efficiently the dataset name
information. Further improvement of the model is still limited by the size of the
training set, and additional annotations will be needed to improve these results and
validate their generalization. For this we plan to focus our efforts on improving the
active learning strategy and annotate a more diverse dataset across SDG areas.
Fig. 3 Distribution of the proportion of SDG labels in our training set
Table 6 Comparison of precision, recall, and F1 scores results on the test set for the text
categorization model
SDG Recall Precision F1
SDG1 0.64 0.86 0.74
SDG2 0.36 0.57 0.44
SDG3 0.67 0.43 0.58
SDG4 0.13 0.20 0.16
SDG5 0.71 0.63 0.67
SDG7 0.50 0.25 0.33
SDG8 0.50 0.40 0.44
SDG10 0.42 0.56 0.48
SDG12 0.13 0.25 0.16
SDG13 0.56 0.42 0.48
SDG14 0.14 0.50 0.22
SDG15 0.46 0.55 0.50
SDG16 0.50 0.50 0.50
5.4 Classification by SDGs
The proportion of annotated SDG by goal is variable, with most SDGs annotated
being SDG 1, SDG 3, SDG 8, and SDG 10 (Fig. 3).
The results of the text categorization model on 13 of the 17 classes are shown on
Table 6. The four goals not included here did not have enough training examples for
the model to learn. The performances vary greatly across the goals, with a better
performance on those with the more training data available, SDG1 and SDG3. The
model understandably struggled to learn well for more than half of the SDGs,
because the variability of the subjects and contexts related to these goals was not
covered with the limited data available.
The weighted average F1 score across the 13 goals is 0.47. The interesting results
here are for SDG 1, the SDG for which we had more annotated data. Even though
recall is still a bit low, the precision and F1 obtained are good and can probably be
further improved. What these results demonstrate is that by collecting more data,
probably targeting at least 500 training samples for each goal, we should be able to
achieve good performances on the paper categorization task. We may still observe
variability due to the ambiguity and complexity of the context to learn behind each
goal, as can be noted across goals with similar amounts of data. For example, SDG
4, 5, 8, and 10 had a comparable training size, but SDG 5 outperformed the others,
while SDG 4 underperformed. There may be several explanations for this. First, the
quality of the annotated data, to have a robust model, we need to have sufficient
diversity and coverage of relevant topics for each goal. For example, for SDG 4,
some relevant topics are literacy, numeracy, scholarships, teaching, or access to
education facilities. Several hundreds or thousands of papers may be necessary to
cover these. Another explanation for this variability can be the noise included in the
data. An important number of these papers were covering more than one goal at the
same time, making it harder to distinguish the individual contextual elements, espe-
cially when two goals frequently appear together like SDG 1 with SDG 10 or SDG
4 with SDG 11.
5.5 Discussion
In development of the SDG data catalog, a few elements still need to be developed.
An entity linking model will be created on top of the NER in order to disambiguate
dataset names identified from the NER and link them to a unique identifier within a
knowledge base. A user interface will also be created and will be free and openly
accessible online. We plan to have it deployed and available in 2022.
The retrieved datasets are validated for their quality and relevance to current
research. They are evaluated for update frequency, accessibility, ownership, and
completeness. Some of these evaluations, like accessibility and frequency, still need
to be done manually at this time, but we plan to automate some of them in the future.
In a recent work, researchers have shown that large AI models trained on mil-
lions on parameters with huge datasets can emit more 600 k pounds of carbon diox-
ide equivalent (Strubell et al. 2019). Knowing this issue, we tried to limit, in certain
ways, the environmental impact of our work. First, using active learning to annotate
the data allowed the models to learn from a smaller dataset, which was collected to
maximize the information that each new data point adds. Eventually, we trained our
models on a few tens of thousands of examples. Once the catalog is in production,
we plan to monitor and measure the carbon emissions and sustainability impact of
maintaining the platform and models using existing cloud solutions.
As described in the SDG classification section, the availability of data varies by
goal. Therefore, not all goals will have the same number of datasets retrieved. While
this may create a bias toward goals with more available data and existing literature,
we believe this would be limited as the catalog is intended to bring visibility to
existing resources, while recognizing where there may be missing elements. Not all
goals will ultimately benefit from data science and AI equally, as some goals may
require more qualitative research, policy engagement or low-tech solutions.
6 Conclusion and Future Work
Recent statistics have shown that the research community is generating more and
more publications and data each year, estimated at more than 2.5 M new publica-
tions each year by the World Bank.12 Researchers can easily be overwhelmed by the
information as this makes it even more difficult to navigate the data sea and identify
what is important. At the same time, work on sustainable development is becoming
more urgent, as the new IPCC report suggests, and we need to make it easier for
people to access relevant data resources.
In this paper, we described the methodology of a system in active development,
the SDG Data Catalog. This system will support the research community to work
and advance on the 17 SDGs. We presented the different steps of our pipeline to
extract dataset names. We first showed how a binary classifier was able to efficiently
extract candidate paragraphs, by comparing different machine learning methodolo-
gies. The XLNet model and RF model with TF-IDF representation showed the best
performance and good ability to filter out useless paragraphs without missing too
many relevant ones. From these paragraphs, we used NER to extract dataset name
entities. Two state-of-the-art deep learning models have shown good performances
in this task: a Bi-LSTM with CRF network and a BERT fine-tuned on this task.
While the results demonstrate that we can identify an important proportion of the
datasets, we can still further improve the models and validate the generalization of
the results to more papers. For this, adding more information with more annotations
will be critical, and improving the active learning strategy is an important element
in making this efficient.
The main contributions of this paper are the establishment of a new baseline
recall score and F1 score for the dataset name identification task using BERT. We
also established new methodologies for extracting relevant research articles, parsing
them, and extracting paragraph candidates from them using a binary classifier.
Finally, we also presented results on categorizing articles according to the SDGs,
12
The World Bank, https://www.worldbank.org
which will help organize datasets into knowledge networks, and showed that with
additional annotated data, good results can be obtained.
It has been 6 years since the implementation of the SDGs started, and we are
9 years away from the actual target date, and much of the data is either not available,
not findable, or even out of date. In order to accelerate the development of sustain-
able solutions, there is an urgent need for a unified structured catalog of available
data. This will not only accelerate the development of AI solutions for the SDGs but
also highlight gaps in the data that are missing to work toward certain indicators
and goals.
As a recent study demonstrated (Allen et al. 2021), there are already a wide range
of datasets identified that are relevant to the SDGs and that could help monitor 15 of
the goals and 69 of the indicators. This does not include all datasets that are used for
publications and that are hidden in huge amounts of published papers. The actual
potential of the existing data is therefore even higher and could be enhanced in the
years to come once gaps are identified. This is the goal of the SDG Data Catalog to
holistically shed light on these datasets.
Once the data are identified, important work must also be done to understand the
quality, validity, and impact of the datasets. Biases inherent in the datasets, such as
in some healthcare data that discriminate against certain ethnicities, must also be
identified. With this additional information, researchers and decision-makers can be
informed more effectively about the important datasets to use. SDGs can also be
more efficiently monitored across the world by tracking local indexes and metrics,
informing about progress.
References
Allen, Cameron, Maggie Smith, Maryam Rabiee, and Hayden Dahmm. 2021. A Review of
Scientific Advancements in Datasets Derived from Big Data for Monitoring the Sustainable
Development Goals. Sustainability Science 16 (5): 1701–1716.
Amel-Zadeh, Amir, Mike Chen, George Mussalli, and Michael Weinberg. 2021. NLP for SDGs:
Measuring Corporate Alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals. Available at SSRN
3874442.
Bautista-Puig, Núria, Ana Marta Aleixo, Susana Leal, Ulisses Azeiteiro, and Rodrigo Costas. 2021.
Unveiling the Research Landscape of Sustainable Development Goals and Their Inclusion in
Higher Education Institutions and Research Centers: Major Trends in 2000–2017. Frontiers in
Sustainability: 12.
Brown, Tom, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D. Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal,
Arvind Neelakantan, et al. 2020. Language Models Are Few-Shot Learners. Advances in
Neural Information Processing Systems 33: 1877–1901.
Devlin, Jacob, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-
Training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1810.04805.
Fuso Nerini. 2020. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Achieving the Sustainable Development
Goals. Nature Communications 11 (1): 1–10.
Hochreiter, Sepp, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1996. LSTM Can Solve Hard Long Time Lag
Problems. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 9.
Hodson, James, and Andy Spezzatti. 2021. Hidden in Plain Sight: Building a Global Sustainable
Development Data Catalogue. In ICT Analysis and Applications, 803–811. Singapore: Springer.
Huang, Zhiheng, Wei Xu, and Kai Yu. 2015. Bidirectional LSTM-CRF Models for Sequence
Tagging. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.01991.
Iwai, Isamu, Miwako Doi, Koji Yamaguchi, Mika Fukui, and Yoichi Takebayashi. 1989. A
Document Layout System Using Automatic Document Architecture Extraction. In Proceedings
of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 369–374.
Kern, Roman, Kris Jack, Maya Hristakeva, and Michael Granitzer. 2012. TeamBeam-Meta-Data
Extraction From Scientific Literature. D-Lib Magazine 18 (7): 1.
Khodiyar, Varsha, Heidi Laine, David O’Brien, Raul Rodriguez-Esteban, Yasemin TÃrkyilmaz-
van der Velden, Grace Baynes, Matthew Brack, et al. 2021. Research Data: The Future of FAIR
White Paper. Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14393552.v1.
Kingma, Diederik P., and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A Method For Stochastic Optimization. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1412.6980.
Knoth, Petr, and Zdenek Zdrahal. 2012. CORE: Three Access Levels to Underpin Open Access.
D-Lib Magazine 18 (11/12): 1–13.
Lee, Raejung, and Jinho Kim. 2021. Developing a Social Index for Measuring the Public Opinion
Regarding the Attainment of Sustainable Development Goals. Social Indicators Research 156
(1): 201–221.
Loper, Edward, and Steven Bird. 2002. Nltk: The Natural Language Toolkit. arXiv preprint
cs/0205028.
Lopez, Patrice. 2009. GROBID: Combining Automatic Bibliographic Data Recognition and Term
Extraction for Scholarship Publications. In International Conference on Theory and Practice
of Digital Libraries, 473–474. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen,
L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock,
T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. Cambridge University Press.
Marinai, Simone. 2009. Metadata Extraction from PDF Papers for Digital Library Ingest. In 2009
10th International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, 251–255. IEEE.
Pennington, Jeffrey, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. Glove: Global Vectors
For Word Representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in
Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 1532–1543.
Ramos, Juan. 2003. Using tf-idf to Determine Word Relevance in Document Queries. Proceedings
of the First Instructional Conference on Machine Learning 242 (1): 29–48.
Sang, Erik F., and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 Shared Task:
Language-Independent Named Entity Recognition. arXiv preprint cs/0306050.
Shuxin, Zhu, Xie Zhonghong, and Chen Yuehong. 2013. Information Extraction From Research
Papers Based on Conditional Random Field Model. TELKOMNIKA Indonesian Journal of
Electrical Engineering 11 (3): 1213–1220.
Sinha, Arnab, Zhihong Shen, Song Yang, Hao Ma, Darrin Eide, Bo-June Hsu, and Kuansan Wang.
2015. An Overview of Microsoft Academic Service (MAS) and Applications. In Proceedings
of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web, 243–246.
Strubell, Emma, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Energy and Policy Considerations
for Deep Learning in NLP. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1906.02243.
Tkaczyk, Dominika, Paweł Szostek, Mateusz Fedoryszak, Piotr Jan Dendek, and Łukasz
Bolikowski. 2015. CERMINE: Automatic Extraction of Structured Metadata From Scientific
Literature. International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition (IJDAR) 18 (4):
317–335.
Domisch, Anna Felländer, Simone Daniela Langhans, Max Tegmark, and Francesco. 2020. The
role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat Commun
11, 233.
Yang, Zhilin, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Russ R. Salakhutdinov, and V.Le. Quoc.
2019. Xlnet: Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understanding. Advances
in Neural Information Processing Systems 32.
Zhang, Daniel, Saurabh Mishra, Erik Brynjolfsson, John Etchemendy, Deep Ganguli, Barbara
Grosz, Terah Lyons, et al. 2021. The AI Index 2021 Annual Report. arXiv Preprint
arXiv:2103.06312.
An Empirical Analysis of AI Contributions
to Sustainable Cities (SDG 11)
Shivam Gupta and Auriol Degbelo
Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) presents opportunities to develop tools and

techniques for addressing some of the major global challenges and deliver solutions
with significant social and economic impacts. The application of AI has far-reaching
implications for the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in general and sus-
tainable urban development in particular. However, existing attempts to understand
and use the opportunities offered by AI for SDG 11 have been explored sparsely,
and the shortage of empirical evidence about the practical application of AI remains.
In this chapter, we analyze the contribution of AI to support the progress of SDG 11
(Sustainable Cities and Communities). We address the knowledge gap by empiri-
cally analyzing the AI systems (N = 29) from the AI×SDG database and the
Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS) database.
Our analysis revealed that AI systems have indeed contributed to advancing sustain-
able cities in several ways (e.g., waste management, air quality monitoring, disaster
response management, transportation management), but many projects are still
working for citizens and not with them. This snapshot of AI’s impact on SDG11 is
inherently partial yet useful to advance our understanding as we move towards more
mature systems and research on the impact of AI systems for the social good.
Keywords Artificial intelligence · Sustainable cities · AI for SDGs · Environment

· Citizen participation · SDG 11
S. Gupta (*)
Bonn Alliance for Sustainability Research, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
Detecon International GmbH, Berlin, Germany
A. Degbelo
Institute of Geoinformatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
462 S. Gupta and A. Degbelo
1 Introduction
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to mitigate several issues facing cities,
such as road safety, waste management, air pollution, and disaster risk reduction
(Gupta et al. 2021). Examples of recent AI systems for improved well-being in cit-
ies include a tool for semiautomatic digitization of sketch maps to support the inclu-
sion of indigenous communities through the documentation of their land rights
(Degbelo et al. 2021; Chipofya et al. 2020), a system for traffic monitoring based on
wireless signals (Gupta et al. 2018a), approaches for efficient waste management
(Barns 2019), air quality modelling (Gupta et al. 2018b) and urban health monitor-
ing systems (Allam and Jones 2020). Nonetheless, a lack of systemically observed
knowledge and multidisciplinary perspective exists with limited coherence about
the characteristics of AI contributions to sustainable cities (Zheng et al. 2020).
Furthermore, as Israilidis et al. (2021) argued, the current research landscape is
mainly focused on technical issues, leaving behind social impacts, participation
capabilities, and knowledge sharing aspects with multi-stakeholder and citizen-
inclusive development. Thus, the implementations of AI remain poorly understood.
To address this gap, this chapter looks into AI systems that contribute to advanc-
ing sustainable cities in several ways serving the Sustainable Development Goal
(SDG) 11 proposed by the United Nations (UN) within the 2030 Agenda. The ques-
tion asked is what are AI4SG contributions for more sustainable cities in the digital
age? AI4SG is defined in line with Cowls et al. (2021a) as the development of AI
systems that enable socially preferable or environmentally sustainable develop-
ments. We look into the nature of the contribution of AI systems to more sustainable
cities (what solution is proposed, to whom, and where) and the SDG indicators
covered (which indicators are covered, which are still underrepresented). The analy-
sis also covers the six citizen-centric challenges for smarter cities brought forth in
Degbelo et al. (2016): the engagement of citizens, the improvement of citizens’ data
literacy, the pairing of quantitative and qualitative data to unlock new insight about
city phenomena, the development of open standards, the development of personal
services, and the development of persuasive interfaces, which can be supportive of
inclusive progress towards SDG 11.
2 Related Work
Cities are complex structures, growing worldwide at a fast pace (Batty 2009).
Commuter movement, capital flow, resources, and commodities lead to the emer-
gence of city regions (Axinte et al. 2019). Due to increasing population size, den-
sity, and location, cities are also prone to adverse effects such as soil, air, and water
pollution and impacts of climate change, affecting surrounding rural areas. Prompt
action is required in the form of new and innovative infrastructures and services for
An Empirical Analysis of AI Contributions to Sustainable Cities (SDG 11) 463
addressing the increasing demands coupled with environmental and climate change
impacts (Solecki et al. 2018).
Urban areas are increasingly digitalized over the last few decades due to signifi-
cant advancements in digital technologies (Ismagilova et al. 2019). Cities are con-
sidered as the drivers for change and innovation (Fitjar and Rodríguez-Pose 2020).
Several innovative approaches are being developed to gather detailed insights and
opportunities for the planning and management of cities (Sharda et al. 2021; Rogers
et al. 2020). Notions such as smart cities touched upon several dimensions or appli-
cation domains where technological infrastructure, system integration, and data
analysis can help us optimize resources in cities (Ismagilova et al. 2019). At the
same time, cities are also trying to reconfigure themselves for a sustainable future,
with the aim to improve the quality of life for all citizens (Barlacchi et al. 2015;
Bibri 2021). The importance of cities is well recognized by the internationally
agreed Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement to reduce
the impact of climate change (Aust 2019). In fact, two-thirds of all Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) can only be achieved in and with the help of cities
(Acuto 2016). Emphasizing the opportunities offered by digital technologies at a
city scale can significantly contribute towards the progress of sustainable develop-
ment in line with the 2030 Agenda.
2.1 AI for SDG 11
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning approaches are emerging as criti-
cal components for a smart and sustainable future by optimizing the services and
addressing several social, environmental, and economic aspects in the cities (Allam
and Dhunny 2019). Thus, they could support progress towards SDG 11 (i.e., “make
cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”). AI is foster-
ing further advancements in technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT),
blockchain, robotics, precision health, and quantum computing (Firouzi et al. 2021;
Dinh and Thai 2018; Rajan and Saffiotti 2017; Tajunisa et al. 2021; Dai 2019), help-
ing in making sense of large quantities of data by utilizing the innovation ecosys-
tems that majorly exist in cities (Rabah 2018). AI is instrumental in advancing the
digitization processes in several cities (Sougkakis et al. 2020; Villagra et al. 2020;
Majumdar et al. 2021), transforming them into more inclusive and sustainable envi-
ronments. Advancements in Earth Observation (EO) technologies empowered with
artificial intelligence (AI) is supporting various aspects of cities (Kuffer et al. 2020,
2021). From land use and pollutants monitoring in cities to supporting efficient
energy and resource consumption (Yatoo et al. 2020; Shahid et al. 2021; Șerban and
Lytras 2020), AI provides us with the opportunities to address complex social
inequalities and environmental interrelationships. Therefore, AI could be consid-
ered a crucial tool for addressing a wide array of challenges for future sustainable
cities. Given the complexity and challenges of rapid urbanization, exploring the
wide range of potential solutions across several domains may be desirable, as evi-
dent from the work mentioned above.
The possibilities offered by AI can only be utilized to their full potential for
SDGs if the ethical, social, and environmental values are uniformly met (Hilbert
2016; Gupta et al. 2021). The targets within the SDGs are intertwined as a unified
framework in the form of 17 goals, forming an “indivisible whole” (Nilsson et al.
2016). The goals and the targets are interlinked and depend on each other; but the
views on how they are linked are still evolving (Nilsson et al. 2016; Vinuesa et al.
2020). Also, the capacity for integrating and intersecting intelligence from diverse
domains for AI applications is growing. AI applications have the potential to make
a significant contribution when several complex aspects are well integrated into the
system for more inclusive action (Allam and Dhunny 2019). There also exists a
significant gap between cities having not made sufficient progress in such digitiza-
tion sphere, creating a social divide and increasing inequalities (Reddick et al. 2020;
Chase 2020). The introduction of AI also risks amplifying some social and ethical
challenges such as unfair bias, discrimination, or opacity in decision-making (Galaz
et al. 2021). AI systems also require large amounts of energy and cause greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions (Taddeo et al. 2021; van Wynsberghe 2021). Thus, highlight-
ing that the application of AI and associated technologies, if not used mindfully,
could also hurt social and economic aspects along with impacts on climate, biodi-
versity, and ecosystems around the world (van Wynsberghe 2021). Therefore, it is
crucial to be careful of the application of AI to ensure that efforts to harness the
advantages of this technology outweigh its associated negative impacts.
2.2 Citizen-Centric Approach for SDG 11
The aim of SDG 11 includes encouraging the development of cities and communi-
ties in a more inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable manner by making urbaniza-
tion more inclusive for stakeholders, reducing the adverse effects of natural disasters,
furthering local to global policies for sustainable development. SDG 11 addresses
the urban level with 10 targets and 15 indicators developed by the United Nations
(2015). Implementation pathways lack comprehensive understanding, as coordina-
tion is required in terms of efforts from various stakeholders, embracing flexible and
adaptive processes to accommodate changing circumstances, and allocating
resources to address uncertain future threats, especially in the context of resilience
(Croese et al. 2020). Limited evidence exists about the integration of genuine sus-
tainability when we are more techno-centric, suggesting a knowledge-based devel-
opment to address the existing complexities (Yigitcanlar et al. 2019). AI could
support the progress of SDG11 through new solutions that enhance the food, health,
transport, water, and energy services to the population. However, to date, less atten-
tion has been paid to the involvement of citizens in the process (Martens 2019),
which has enormous potential to contribute towards the SDGs progress by localiza-
tion (Li et al. 2018).
AI systems enabling citizen participation can enhance the action towards sustain-
ability through the collection of timely, high-resolution data, which could enhance
the knowledge base required for SDGs progress (Fritz et al. 2019). Social and cul-
tural information dictates the context in which the AI is implemented. Citizen par-
ticipation provides the public with the opportunity to support policy development,
leading to trust-building, credibility, and ultimately inclusiveness in taking actions
towards SDGs. SDGs require actions that can transform existing practices across
sectors. Fraisl et al. (2020) demonstrate that citizen participation “could contribute”
to 76 indicators (33%) of SDGs, coverage of 60% indicators of SDG 11. It is crucial
to integrate citizen-centric pathways to balance technological, social, and environ-
mental factors (Kirwan and Zhiyong 2020). The experientially trained or traditional
or local knowledge from citizens could be a valuable source for addressing concerns
related to disaster (Munsaka and Dube 2018), urban planning (Antweiler 2019), and
environmental monitoring along with climate change mitigation (Makondo and
Thomas 2018; Magni 2017). Citizen participation could act as relevant agents of
change to mobilizing civil society for targets and indicators concerning sustainable
consumption (Micheletti et al. 2014), air quality monitoring (Gupta et al. 2018b),
disaster risk mitigation (Ferri et al. 2020), and sustainable and inclusive urbaniza-
tion (Newman et al. 2020). Multi-stakeholder participation and citizen-centered
knowledge hubs could be instrumental for sustainable cities (Saner et al. 2020).
2.3 Exiting Gaps
AI is not the sole solution for developing sustainable cities, but as illustrated above,
efforts to use AI for sustainable cities are increasing rapidly. These could help
address complex challenges faced by humanity in social, environmental, and eco-
nomic aspects (Vinuesa et al. 2020). If utilized carefully, outcomes supportive of
sustainable development can be harnessed at a grand scale. Therefore, it is essential
to learn the impact of AI as a tool for global good in a more systematic manner.
Understanding this impact requires an understanding of factors that determine the
advantage of using AI considered in a particular context as a part of sociotechnical
systems (Cowls et al. 2021b). The SDGs here may provide a useful framework.
Nevertheless, SDGs are sometimes considered ambitious and wide-ranging
(Pekmezovic 2019). This ambitious and wide-ranging nature also inspires and stim-
ulates action for sustainable development (Walker et al. 2019). Several systematic
approaches were undertaken in the recent past to gather evidence of the use of AI for
SDGs worldwide, resulting in the generation of datasets and knowledge bases orga-
nized in different forms, presenting a distinct picture of the impact AI has on SDGs
(Vinuesa et al. 2020; Tomašev et al. 2020; Cowls et al. 2021b; Palomares et al.
2021). However, it is imperative to note that these studies reflect on the impact of AI
for SDGs at a high level and often include evidence from experimental closed sys-
tems. A deeper analysis is required to understand the role of different actors, practi-
tioners, impacts, social implications, and contribution of AI to specific sub-goals of
SDGs, which is scarcely discussed. Additionally, understanding discrepancies

between the relevance of AI at the goal level and deeper conflicts amid the need for
SDG targets and indicators is essential to realize how key stakeholders could care-
fully use AI for sustainable development.
Overall, flawed understanding of complexities in implementation of AI systems
for SDGs, governance hurdles, lack of knowledge about the influence of AI on suit-
able targets and indicators, and unclear role and responsibilities among stakeholders
lead to uncoordinated exercises, thus limiting us from realizing the full potential of
technological innovation for sustainable development. Additionally, civic aware-
ness, citizen engagement, ownership, and citizen-centric approaches must be
enhanced for inclusive action (Guan et al. 2019; Rubio-Mozos et al. 2019; Thinyane
2018). The remainder of the chapter intends to inform discussions on both AI for
SDG11 and for deeper citizen engagement through a systematic analysis of the
contributions of past and ongoing projects.
3 Method
We critically analyzed existing projects on AI4SG and CORDIS database to synthe-

size progress and learn about current gaps. The data collection and analysis were
done in four steps.
Step 1: Data Collection AIxSDGs. We have retrieved all projects from the Oxford
Initiative on AIxSDGs, which are related to SDG11. Contrary to the AIxSDGs
initiative, which did the mapping at the goal level, the mapping in this work was
done at the indicator level.
Step 2: Data Collection CORDIS. We have retrieved all projects from the CORDIS
database that are related to the theme of the paper. There are 12 possible contri-
butions to search for in the database: “Projects,” “Results Packs,” “Research*EU
Magazines,” “Results in Brief,” “News,” “Events,” “Interviews,” “Report
Summaries,” “Project Deliverable,” “Project Publications” “Exploitable Results,”
and “Programs.” We decided to focus on “Project Deliverables,” “Project
Publications,” and “Exploitable Results,” since we are interested in concrete out-
comes. Also, focusing on these types of contributions is consistent with the data
obtained from AIxSG (step1) because the projects obtained from step 1 share the
common feature that they have been successfully implemented on the ground for
at least 6 months and have no negative impact measured. Besides, the CORDIS
Web application enables the search of results by application domain and offers
11 application domains: “Industrial Technologies,” “Fundamental Research,”
“Transport and Mobility,” “Health,” “Society,” “Security,” “Climate Change and
Environment,” “Energy,” “Space,” “Digital Economy,” and “Food and Natural
Resources.” The two authors went through the 10 targets of SDG 11 and mapped
them to the 11 themes of the CORDIS platform. The results of the mapping were
11.1 => (NA), 11.2 => (transportation mobility), 11.3 => (society), 11.4 => (NA),
11.5 => (climate change and environment), 11.6 => (climate change and envi-
ronment), 11.7 => (society), 11.a => (NA), 11.b => (NA), and 11.c => (NA).
As a result, we searched for the project deliverables, project publications, and
exploitation results related to the themes “Transport and Mobility,” “Climate
Change and Environment,” and “Society.” “Artificial intelligence” or AI system can
be defined in many ways as shown in (Samoili et al. 2020). Hence, the search for
AI-related work in the CORDIS database was done using a variety of keywords. We
have used two sources for these keywords: keywords pointing at the subdomains of
AI suggested by the Joint Research Centre (Samoili et al. 2020) and keywords from
the AI Glossary by (Hutson 2017). The search strings used were:
• JRC subdomains search string: “Knowledge representation” or “Automated rea-
soning” or “Common sense reasoning” or “Planning” or “Scheduling” or
“Searching” or “Optimisation” or “Computer vision” or “Audio processing” or
“Multi-agent systems” or “Robotics” or “Automation” or “Connected vehicles”
or “Automated vehicles” or “AI Services” or “AI Ethics” or “Philosophy AI.”
• AI glossary search string: “Algorithm” or “Backpropagation” or “Black Box” or
“Deep Learning” or “Expert System” or “Generative Adversarial Networks” or
“Machine Learning” or “Natural Language Processing” or “Neural Network” or
“Neuromorphic Chip” or “Perceptron” or “Reinforcement Learning” or “Strong
AI” or “Supervised Learning” or “Tensorflow” or “Transfer Learning” or
“Turing Test.”
The search on October 3, 2021 returned 333 results.
Step 3: Filtering. The results obtained from the CORDIS database were filtered to
keep only the projects that have developed AI systems. At this stage, some out-
comes (N = 320) from the previous step were excluded, and N = 13 results were
included in the final analysis. 16 projects were identified from the AIxSDG data-
base. At the end of this step, 29 projects remained (see Table 1), which were
included in the final analysis.
Step 4: Coding. For each project selected (steps 1 and 3), we coded the nature of the
contribution (what solution is proposed, to whom, and where), the SDG indica-
tors covered (the indicators to which the AI system proposed is relevant), and the
citizen-centric challenges to which the AI system is relevant. The coding was
done deductively and went through many iterations (i.e., the categories were
defined a priory based on the existing scientific and grey literature, and we
remained open to extending the original list during the coding if some categories
were missed).
Autonomous vehicle (i.e., self-driving cars, autonomous drones). As for the benefi-
ciary, we used a relatively coarse categorization based on who pays for the product
or system: companies/businesses, government/public sector, and citizens. Prototypes
developed during research projects, unless they have a dedicated citizen focus, fell
under the category of government/public sector. Deciding on the cities where the
solution was deployed proved to be a challenge because of the varying level of
Table 1 Overview of the projects and their contributions. Legend: G/PS (government/public
sector), C/B (company/business), AI4SDG (data from the AI4SDG database), CORDIS-G (data
from the CORDIS database, obtained after the search using the keywords from the AI Glossary,
CORDIS-J (data from the CORDIS database, obtained after the search using the keywords from
the JRC)
Key
Project name Type of system beneficiary Target Social impact Dataset
IRBin Robot C/B 11.6 Efficient municipal AI4SDG
waste management
Prometea Software G/PS 11.b Resource efficiency AI4SDG
application (substantial time
savings) in the
judicial system
Brightics AI Software C/B 11.5 Enhanced risk AI4SDG
application analysis (natural
disasters, weather,
social issues)
National Fine Dust Software G/PS, 11.6 Improved citizens’ AI4SDG
Forecast Project application, citizens protection against air
analysis model pollutants
Ennet Eye Software C/B 11.b Enhanced building AI4SDG
application energy management
AIxAI Software C/B 11.b Efficient resource AI4SDG
application distribution
(transportation,
energy)
UNIST Heatwave Analysis model G/PS 11.3 Better informed AI4SDG
Research human settlement
planning
FiveAI Autonomous G/PS, 11.2 Enhanced public AI4SDG
vehicle citizens transportation
infrastructure
Optibus Software C/B 11.2 Optimized transit in AI4SDG
application cities
Seneka Robot G/PS 11.5 Faster disaster rescue AI4SDG
operations
Breeze Software citizens, G/ 11.6 Better informed air AI4SDG
application PS quality monitoring
Qucit Software citizens, G/ 11.7 Improved resource AI4SDG
application PS finding (parking
spaces, bikes)
RUBSEE Robot C/B 11.6 Improved waste AI4SDG
treatment
AMP Robotics Robot C/B 11.6 More efficient AI4SDG
recycling (plastic,
metals)
DiDi Smart Software G/PS 11.2 Enhanced AI4SDG
Transportation Brain application transportation
services
(continued)
Table 1 (continued)
Key
Project name Type of system beneficiary Target Social impact Dataset
Dynamic and Analysis model G/PS 11.5 Enhanced risk AI4SDG
Robust Wildfire analysis (wildfire)
Risk Prediction
System
MEDACTION 4 Analysis G/PS 11.3 Desertification CORDIS-G
model, management
software strategies
application
CLEOPATRA Software G/PS 11.5 Enhanced oil CORDIS-G
application pollution monitoring
REVAMP Software G/PS 11.5 Better informed CORDIS-G
application coastal disaster
emergency
management
DAYWATER Software G/PS 11.5 Improved urban CORDIS-G
application storm water
monitoring
ENVISNOW Analysis G/PS 11.5 Enhanced modelling CORDIS-G
model, of snowmelt
algorithm
FLOODMAN Analysis model G/PS 11.5 Improved monitoring CORDIS-G
of water bodies
Cybermove Autonomous G/PS 11.2 Enhanced public CORDIS-J
vehicle transportation
infrastructure
geoland Analysis model G/PS 11.3 Geoinformation CORDIS-J
services for land
monitoring
SITAR Software G/PS 11.6 Improved monitoring CORDIS-J
application of toxic waste
CAMELS Analysis model G/PS 11.3 Estimation of CORDIS-J
terrestrial carbon sink
MEGAFIRES Analysis model G/PS 11.5 Improved risk CORDIS-J
estimation (wildfire)
ECOSIM Analysis model G/PS 11.6 Improved air quality CORDIS-J
forecasting
SPHERE Analysis G/PS 11.5 Enhanced flood risk CORDIS-J
model, estimation
software
application
granularities at which the projects were documented. At times, the location where
the solution was deployed was not at all reported. At other times, the solution was
deployed in several cities (again here, datasets on the exact locations where it has
been deployed were not available or sparsely available). For this reason, we had to
resort to some simple rules: (1) include the city when it is explicitly mentioned in
the project description or some supplementary material (e.g., demo video) on the
Web; (2) when the system has been deployed in many cities (e.g., the Optibus
project),1 the city of the headquarter is used as a location for the project; and (3)
research projects documented in the CORDIS database often did not report on the
deployment sites or had used several sites for cross-validation as is typically the
case for European projects. Consistent with the use of the headquarter of the com-
panies above, we have used the headquarters’ location of the coordinating institu-
tion of the project. The list of SDG indicators was taken from the UNDESA SDG
Indicators Metadata repository (United Nations Department of Economic and
Social Affairs (UNDESA) 2015; UNDESA Statistics Division 2021). Finally, the
definition of citizen-centric challenges was taken from (Degbelo et al. 2016): deep
participation (i.e., working with citizens, not only for them), the data-literate citi-
zenry (i.e., promotion of data literacy skills and the fostering of digital inclusion),
pairing quantitative and qualitative data (i.e., the combination of quantitative data
with volunteered geographic information by users that is typically qualitative), open
standards (i.e., data available as open data, along with the development or promo-
tion of open standards for data collection, analysis, storage, and sharing), personal
services (i.e., services adaptive to the abilities, expertise, and needs of individual
users), and persuasive interface (i.e., interfaces that raise awareness about, stimu-
late, or encourage change towards more sustainable behaviors). The results of the
coding are presented next.
4 Results
We now report on the outcomes of the coding process. The reporting presents some
descriptive statistics about the geographic distribution of the projects examined,
their key beneficiary, the type of system developed, the target and indicators for
which they are relevant, and the citizen-centric challenges they connect to.
Interpreting the data and providing some speculative implications is done in Sect. 5.
To facilitate readability, the name of the project is left in CAPITALS when the origi-
nal project acronym was provided in capitals. Else the name of the project is
italicized.
1
https://www.aiforsdgs.org/all-projects/optibus
4.1 Geographic Distribution of AI Projects
Figure 1 shows the geographic distribution of the different projects. A safe interpre-
tation of this map (given the different possible interpretations of location, see the
discussion in Sect. 3) is that it gives an idea about where past/ongoing AI-powered
projects related to the SDG 11 have been initiated.
4.2 Key Beneficiaries of AI Projects
The majority of the projects (76%) in the datasets were targeted at the government
or the public sector. Examples of this type of project include the Prometea project
that led to substantial time savings in the Argentinian judicial system, projects that
try to enhance the public transportation infrastructure through the use of autono-
mous cars (e.g., Cybermove, FiveAI), and several projects that attempt to address the
problem of environmental monitoring from different angles (e.g., ENVISNOW for
monitoring snowmelt, CAMELS for monitoring terrestrial carbon sink, and SPHERE
for flood risk estimation). 24% of the projects targeted improvements for compa-
nies/businesses. Examples of these projects include those attempt to address the
issue of efficient energy management in cities (e.g., Ennet Eye for building energy
management, AIxAI for efficient transportation/energy resource distribution) and
projects that attempt to improve waste treatment and management (e.g., the IRBin,
RUBSEE). Overall, only a few projects (10%) can be said to address the needs of the
civil society: Qucit has developed tools to facilitate the finding of parking spaces
and bikes in cities; the National Fine Dust Forecast Project provided applications to
inform citizens about the concentration of air pollutants, helping thereby better pro-
tect themselves against these pollutants; and the Breeze project strives to provide
better information about air quality through its platform.
4.3 Types of Systems
Robots (14%) are one type of AI contribution to more sustainable cities. They have
been deployed to facilitate waste management (as done, for instance, in the RUBSEE,
AMP Robotics, and IRBin projects) or to facilitate rescue operations during disaster
management (e.g., the Seneka project). Other contributions are made in the form of
software applications, for instance, to facilitate data analysis through an (analytics)
platform (see the Brightics AI project) or to speed up work in the judicial domain
(e.g., the Prometea project). Software application contributions were more frequent
in the dataset (52%). Another type of contribution (38%) is in the form of analysis
models (e.g., to predict heatwaves, see the UNIST Heatwave Research project). 2
projects (Cybermove and FiveAI) are concerned with self-driving cars, and one
Fig. 1 Geographic distribution of the places where projects in the datasets have been initiated
(top: overview; middle: zoom on central European Countries; bottom: zoom on Asian Countries)
project (i.e., the ENVISNOW project) proposed an algorithm to retrieve snow depth
by using artificial neural networks and multifrequency radiometric data from
satellites.
4.4 Targets Served by AI Projects
Target 11.5 appears more frequently (34%) in the dataset as a result of several proj-
ects dealing with disaster mitigation and management as a use case, e.g., the Seneka
project mentioned above, the Dynamic and Robust Wildfire Risk Prediction System
(predicting wildfire risk from weather data, see (Salehi et al. 2016)), the MEGAFiReS
project (fire monitoring with remote sensing images), the FLOODMAN project
(flood monitoring), and the CLEOPATRA project (oil and marine pollution). A share
of projects (21%) is concerned with shaping more environmentally friendly cities
(SDG Target 11.6) through improved waste management/treatment (e.g., IRBin,
AMP Robotics, SITAR) or providing “better” information regarding the quality of
the air (e.g., the National Fine Dust Forecast Project or Breeze). Our sample had an
equal share of projects dedicated to Target 11.2 (sustainable transport systems,
14%) and Target 11.3 (sustainable human settlement planning, 14%). Past/ongoing
AI systems relevant to Target 11.2 have been introduced (or are being explored) to
optimize transit in cities (e.g., the Optibus project), expand the existing transporta-
tion infrastructure through the use of autonomous vehicles (e.g., Cybermove,
FiveAI), or services to facilitate the management of the traffic flow (e.g., DiDi Smart
Transportation Brain). The four projects relevant to Target 11.3 in our sample con-
tributed with management strategies for desertification (e.g., MEDACTION 4), tools
to inform improved human settlement planning (e.g., the UNIST Heatwave Research
project), and built tools/models that could be used for improved urban planning
(e.g., geoland proposed the Observatory Spatial Planning to “put[…] urban growth
on the map,” and CAMELS proposed models for the terrestrial carbon sinks). The
remaining three projects contribute to more efficient resource management (i.e.,
Target 11.b for Ennet Eye and AIxAI) and the unlocking of new possibilities to
access urban spaces (i.e., Target 11.7 for Qucit). The connection of the AI projects
to the SDG11 targets is shown in Fig. 2.
4.5 Indicators Supported by AI Projects
The relevance of the AI projects to the SDG11 indicators is shown in Fig. 3. A

glimpse at the figure shows that the data is more skewed towards Indicator 11.5.2
(Target 11.5) and has an almost equal share of items for the Indicators 11.6.1 and
11.6.2 (Target 11.6). More interesting here is that not all projects connected to a
target could be assigned to an indicator. This is an issue that may point at the need
to expand the list of indicators to cover (important) aspects of sustainable cities that
Fig. 2 Projects in the dataset and their relevance to the SDG 11 targets
are not covered currently. To inform future work along those lines, we report on why
these projects fit a target but do not fit an indicator.
• Ennet Eye (Target 11.b): the system proposed detects “problems such as the
unnecessary use of electricity and presents the economic burden and possible
solutions to the problems in order to improve energy efficiency”.2 As such, it is a
useful solution towards sustainable resource usage, but none of the two Indicators
11.b.1 (number of countries that adopt national disaster risk reduction strategies)
and 11.b.2 (proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local
disaster risk reduction in line with national disaster risk reduction strategies)
would have done justice to that aspect of sustainable electricity usage in the city.
This would have fallen rather under SDG7. Target 7.3 reads: “By 2030, double
the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency,” and the Indicator 7.3.1
reads: “Energy intensity measured in terms of primary energy and GDP.” A ques-
tion this raises is whether or not some indicators directly relevant to energy effi-
ciency are needed for monitoring progress on sustainable cities.
• AIxAI (Target 11.b): The project allows “real-time area management for efficient
resource distribution”.3 Examples of “resources” mentioned in the project
description include air conditioning, operation of elevators and escalators, and
cleaning and personnel costs. The argument stated above regarding indicators
related to the improved energy efficiency in cities applies.
• Prometea (Target 11.b): the project achieved substantial time-saving gains
through the introduction of digitization/AI in the judicial system.4 This is an
2
https://www.aiforsdgs.org/all-projects/ennet-eye-powered-energylink
3
https://www.aiforsdgs.org/all-projects/aixai-area-information-x-artificial-intelligence
4
https://medium.com/astec/prometea-artificial-intelligence-in-the-judicial-system-of-argentina-
4dfbde079c4
Fig. 3 Projects in the dataset and their relevance to the SDG11 indicators
indirect contribution to the mitigation of climate change. A non-digital process

implies much being done in-person and several rounds of in-person travelling to
get some information or provide information (e.g., a missing document for the
process). A digital process reduces the cost of accessing and exchanging infor-
mation and reduces the need for travelling/commuting to the benefit of the cli-
mate. There is currently no indicator covering the (positive/negative) impact of
digitization on climate change (e.g., CO2 emissions).
• UNIST Heatwave Research for National Heat Wave Policy (Target 11.3): the
project uses artificial intelligence to investigate “detailed thermal characteristics
of urban areas”.5 None of Indicator 11.3.1 (ratio of land consumption rate to
population growth rate) and Indicator 11.3.2 (proportion of cities with a direct
participation structure of civil society in urban planning) would have reflected
the value of the contribution. This seems to point at the fact that there are more
aspects to sustainable urban planning than land consumption/population growth
rate and citizen participation alone.
• geoland (Target 3): the project provides several geoinformation services for land
monitoring.6 Same argument as just above regarding the aspects of sustainable
urban planning.
• CAMELS (Target 3): the project focused on monitoring terrestrial carbon sink
and its causes.7 The argument above regarding the aspects of sustainable urban
planning also applies.
5
https://www.aiforsdgs.org/all-projects/unist-heatwave-research-national-heat-wave-policy
6
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/502871/results
7
https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/85263-estimating-europes-carbon-dioxide-fluxes
4.6 Contribution to Citizen-Centric Challenges
Three projects had contributions relevant to the citizen-centric challenges. Breeze

provides services in the area of air quality sensors, air quality data, and air quality
analytics. It offers citizens the opportunity to participate by becoming sensor hosts.
This is an example of a measure to facilitate deeper citizen participation. The
MEDACTION 4 project contributed a Public Participation Geographical Information
System (PPGIS) featuring neural network components. Participatory stakeholder
workshops were also organized to engage the public with the driving forces and
effects of land degradation and desertification. This too is an example of a measure
to promote deeper citizen participation. Finally, the DAYWATER project produced
the Hydropolis app, which has different types of users (i.e., guest, user, manager,
administrator) and adapts the level of information provided according to their back-
ground.8 This could be seen as a primitive form of adaptivity/personalization. In
general, the number of projects in the dataset which can be said to connect to the
citizen-centric challenges is relatively low (10%).
5 Discussion
5.1 Key Takeaways
As for the geographic distribution, there are some notable disparities, with Europe
over-represented in this dataset and the rest of the world having fewer contributions.
This may be a feature of the dataset or a true indication that other countries/conti-
nents are doing less regarding AI contributions to more sustainable cities. At this
point, we attribute our observations to the fact that half of the data items came from
the CORDIS database, which biases it automatically towards European cities. The
value of this work is to have provided a snapshot that could be extended towards a
more comprehensive picture of AI contributions to more sustainable cities
worldwide.
Regarding the SDG targets and indicators, a noteworthy observation is that some
targets did not appear at all in the sample. This is the case for Target 11.1 (safe and
affordable housing), Target 11.4 (protection of the world’s cultural and natural heri-
tage), Target 11.a (strengthening economic, social and environmental links between
urban, peri-urban, and rural areas), and Target 11.c (support least developed coun-
tries in building sustainable and resilient buildings utilizing local materials). There
are also two possible options: these areas have indeed received little attention so far
(and hence it is worth exploring the opportunities of digitization to provide some
8
See http://daywater.in2p3.fr/EN/guide/chapter6.php
added value), or the observation is a feature of the bias of the current dataset.
Another takeaway from the dataset is that AI systems have indeed contributed to
tackling issues of sustainable cities in several ways: waste management, air quality
monitoring (and more broadly environmental monitoring), disaster response man-
agement, and transportation management. Given that AI systems are on the rise, it
can be expected that their number in the areas just mentioned and other areas of
sustainable development will increase. Thus, it could be useful to explore ways of
documenting best practices for AI implementation/deployment/use in these differ-
ent areas. The issue is by no means trivial. There are, as the data has shown, differ-
ent stakeholders with potentially conflicting interests (e.g., companies that may
want to preserve what works as a competitive advantage and research that wants to
make knowledge available to all).
Finally, a key takeaway regarding the citizen-centric challenges is that many
projects are still working for citizens (i.e., on their behalf) and not with them (i.e.,
actively involving them). A reason for this may be the fact that AI for social good is
still in its infancy. For instance, several projects mentioned in Sect. 3 dealt with
disaster mitigation. This is an endeavor for which the value of involving citizens has
been documented in the past (e.g., Zook et al. (2010)). It may be conjectured that as
the AI for social good initiatives mature, the involvement of citizens will become
more pronounced.
5.2 Limitations
A general limitation of the current work is that it has been only descriptive and not
explanatory (e.g., we can say little at the moment about why the state of affairs
observed has been observed). We have also mentioned that the dataset is biased
towards European cities. The method also has inherent limitations: (1) the assign-
ment of locations to the projects a posteriori was subject to some reasonable assump-
tions but was still arbitrary to some extent: having those locations assigned a priori
in a database would provide a more consistent picture of the geographical distribu-
tions; (2) the decision whether or not a project was AI-powered was made based on
the keywords from the AI Glossary and the JRC: it may well be that some authors
doing truly valuable AI work have not used these keywords in the descriptions used
for the assessment (i.e., CORDIS and AI4SDG); (3) many projects from the
CORDIS database were completed before 2015 when the SDG agenda was agreed
upon and thus did not have the SDG goals in mind; and (4) the mapping of the proj-
ects to the SDG was done to the most relevant target: it would have been equally
possible to list a project under several targets. Finally, we were deliberately inter-
ested in SDG11 and mapped the project to the targets and indicators related to
SDG11. The contributions of some of the projects apply to more than SDG11, and
extending our analysis might unveil interesting patterns about the synergies of
SDGs (e.g., which contributions apply to which SDGs simultaneously and which
SDGs share how many contributions more often).
5.3 Future Work
As AI for social good is a new area, the interesting question is that of the evaluation
of success. We have pondered this question at the beginning of the work but dropped
it from the analysis because it was unclear from the documentation of most projects
how the solutions were evaluated. In general, the task of empirically assessing the
contributions has proven more challenging than expected because of the lack of
homogeneous documentation. The present trend in literature also suggests the lack
of reporting towards carbon emission and energy consumption, suggesting adverse
impact to the sustainable development efforts (Henderson et al. 2020). There is thus
an opportunity for initiatives that (1) offer an ongoing call for AI4SDG projects and
(2) provide a simple, structured template for AI systems’ developers to document
the value of their work. Such initiatives will be critical in assessing where we are
and advancing the science of AI for social good.
6 Conclusion
In this chapter, we analyzed the contributions of AI systems to cities and illuminated

areas of AI4SG that deserve more attention on the road towards more sustainable
cities for SDG 11 and beyond. To help understand the current impacts of AI, the
analysis presents the geographic distribution of the AI projects, their key beneficia-
ries, system type, the target, and indicators for which they are relevant that could be
supportive in gaining knowledge about the influence of AI on suitable targets and
indicators, type of technologies, their social impact, and responsible stakeholder.
We have learned that AI systems have indeed contributed to advancing sustainable
cities in several ways (e.g., waste management, air quality monitoring, disaster
response management, transportation management), but many projects are still
working for citizens and not with them. This current snapshot of the impact of AI
projects on SDG 11 has been limited by the quantity and the quality of the available
data on existing AI projects. As we move towards more mature work on AI for
social good, initiatives that promote consistent and high-quality documentation of
AI projects will be vital for a deeper understanding of AI’s impact on more/less
sustainable and inclusive cities.
Availability of Data and Materials The list of projects presented is available at
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.17008366.
Acknowledgments Dr. Shivam Gupta gratefully acknowledge funding provided by the German
Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) for the project “digitainable.” Dr. Auriol
Degbelo gratefully acknowledges funding from the European Social Fund and the Ministry of
Economic Affairs, Innovation, Digitalization and Energy of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia
through the SmartLandMaps 2.0 project (EFRE-0400389).
Appendices
ppendix A: Definition of the SDG 11 Targets Found

A
in the Dataset
In alphabetical order
• 11.b Substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting
and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource effi-
ciency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and
develop and implement holistic disaster risk management at all levels.
• 11.2 Provide access to safe, affordable, accessible, and sustainable transport sys-
tems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with
special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children,
persons with disabilities, and older persons.
• 11.3 Enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participa-
tory, integrated, and sustainable human settlement planning and management in
all countries.
• 11.5 Significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected
and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross
domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a
focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations.
• 11.6 Reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by
paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.
• 11.7 Provide universal access to safe, inclusive, and accessible green and public
spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons, and persons with
disabilities.
ppendix B: Definition of the SDG 11 Indicators Found

A
in the Dataset
In alphabetical order
• 11.2.1 Proportion of population that has convenient access to public transport, by
sex, age, and persons with disabilities
• 11.3.2 Proportion of cities with a direct participation structure of civil society in
urban planning and management that operate regularly and democratically
• 11.5.1 Number of deaths, missing persons, and directly affected persons attrib-
uted to disasters per 100,000 populations
• 11.5.2 Direct economic loss in relation to global GDP, damage to critical infra-
structure, and number of disruptions to basic services, attributed to disasters
• 11.6.1 Proportion of municipal solid waste collected and managed in controlled
facilities out of total municipal waste generated, by cities
• 11.6.2 Annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (e.g., PM2.5 and PM10) in
cities (population weighted)
• 11.7.1 Average share of the built-up area of cities that is open space for public
use for all, by sex, age, and persons with disabilities
References
Acuto, M. 2016. Give Cities a Seat at the Top Table. Nature News 537 (7622): 611.
Allam, Z., and Z.A. Dhunny. 2019. On Big Data, Artificial Intelligence and Smart Cities. Cities
89: 80–91.
Allam, Z., and D.S. Jones. 2020. On the Coronavirus (Covid-19) Outbreak and the Smart City
Network: Universal Data Sharing Standards Coupled with Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Benefit
Urban Health Monitoring and Management. In Healthcare, vol. 8, 46. Multidisciplinary Digital
Publishing Institute, Basel.
Antweiler, C. 2019. Local Knowledge Theory and Methods: An Urban Model from Indonesia. In
Investigating Local Knowledge, 1–34. Routledge.
Aust, H.P. 2019. The Shifting Role of Cities in the Global Climate Change Regime: From Paris to
Pittsburgh and Back? Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law
28 (1): 57–66.
Axinte, L.F., A. Mehmood, T. Marsden, and D. Roep. 2019. Regenerative City-Regions: A New
Conceptual Framework. Regional Studies, Regional Science 6 (1): 117–129.
Barlacchi, G., M. De Nadai, R. Larcher, A. Casella, C. Chitic, G. Torrisi, F. Antonelli, A. Vespignani,
A. Pentland, and B. Lepri. 2015. A Multisource Dataset of Urban Life in the City of Milan and
the Province of Trentino. Scientific Data 2 (1): 1–15.
Barns, S. 2019. Platform Urbanism: Negotiating Platform Ecosystems in Connected Cities.
Springer.
Batty, M. 2009. Cities as Complex Systems: Scaling, Interaction, neTworks, Dynamics and Urban
Morphologies. In Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, ed. R. Meyers. New York:
Springer.
Bibri, S.E. 2021. Data-Driven Smart Sustainable Cities of the Future: An Evidence Synthesis
Approach to a Comprehensive State-of-the-Art Literature Review. Sustainable Futures
3: 100047.
Chase, A.C. 2020. Ethics of AI: Perpetuating Racial Inequalities in Healthcare Delivery and Patient
Outcomes. Voices in Bioethics 6. https://doi.org/10.7916/vib.v6i.5890.
Chipofya, M., M. Karamesouti, C. Schultz, and A. Schwering. 2020. Local Domain Models for
Land Tenure Documentation and Their Interpretation into the LADM. Land Use Policy 99:
105005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105005.
Cowls, J., A. Tsamados, M. Taddeo, and L. Floridi. 2021a. A Definition, Benchmark and Database
of AI for Social Good Initiatives. Nature Machine Intelligence 3 (2): 111–115. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s42256-021-00296-0.
———. 2021b. A Definition, Benchmark and Database of AI for Social Good Initiatives. Nature
Machine Intelligence 3 (2): 111–115.
Croese, S., C. Green, and G. Morgan. 2020. Localizing the Sustainable Development Goals
Through the Lens of Urban Resilience: Lessons and Learnings from 100 Resilient Cities and
Cape Town. Sustainability 12 (2): 550.
Dai, W. 2019. Quantum-Computing with AI & Blockchain: Modelling, Fault Tolerance and
Capacity Scheduling. Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems 25 (6):
523–559.
Degbelo, A., C. Granell, S. Trilles, D. Bhattacharya, S. Casteleyn, and C. Kray. 2016. Opening
Up Smart Cities: Citizen-Centric Challenges and Opportunities from GIScience. ISPRS
International Journal of Geo-Information 5 (2): 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi5020016.
Degbelo, A., C. Stöcker, K. Kundert, and M. Chipofya. 2021. SmartLandMaps – From Customary
Tenure to Land Information Systems. In FIG e-Working Week 2021 – Challenges in a New
Reality.
Dinh, T.N., and M.T. Thai. 2018. AI and Blockchain: A Disruptive Integration. Computer 51
(9): 48–53.
Ferri, M., U. Wehn, L. See, M. Monego, and S. Fritz. 2020. The Value of Citizen Science for Flood
Risk Reduction: Cost–Benefit Analysis of a Citizen Observatory in the Brenta-Bacchiglione
Catchment. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 24 (12): 5781–5798.
Firouzi, F., B. Farahani, and A. Marinˇsek. 2021. The Convergence and Interplay of Edge, Fog, and
Cloud in the AI-Driven Internet of Things (IoT). Information Systems 107: 101840.
Fitjar, R.D., and A. Rodríguez-Pose. 2020. Where Cities Fail to Triumph: The Impact of Urban
Location and Local Collaboration on Innovation in Norway. Journal of Regional Science 60
(1): 5–32.
Fraisl, D., J. Campbell, L. See, U. Wehn, J. Wardlaw, M. Gold, I. Moorthy, R. Arias, J. Piera,
J.L. Oliver, et al. 2020. Mapping Citizen Science Contributions to the UN Sustainable
Development Goals. Sustainability Science 15 (6): 1735–1751.
Fritz, S., L. See, T. Carlson, M.M. Haklay, J.L. Oliver, D. Fraisl, R. Mondardini, M. Brocklehurst,
L.A. Shanley, S. Schade, et al. 2019. Citizen Science and the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals. Nature Sustainability 2 (10): 922–930.
Galaz, V., M.A. Centeno, P.W. Callahan, A. Causevic, T. Patterson, I. Brass, S. Baum, D. Farber,
J. Fischer, D. Garcia, et al. 2021. Artificial Intelligence, Systemic Risks, and Sustainability.
Technology in Society 67: 101741.
Guan, T., K. Meng, W. Liu, and L. Xue. 2019. Public Attitudes Toward Sustainable Development
Goals: Evidence from Five Chinese Cities. Sustainability 11 (20): 5793.
Gupta, S., A. Hamzin, and A. Degbelo. 2018a. A Low-Cost Open Hardware System for Collecting
Traffic Data Using Wi-Fi Signal Strength. Sensors 18 (11): 3623. https://doi.org/10.3390/
s18113623.
Gupta, S., E. Pebesma, J. Mateu, and A. Degbelo. 2018b. Air Quality Monitoring Network Design
Optimisation for Robust Land Use Regression Models. Sustainability 10 (5): 1442. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su10051442.
Gupta, S., S.D. Langhans, S. Domisch, F. Fuso-Nerini, A. Felländer, M. Battaglini, M. Tegmark,
and R. Vinuesa. 2021. Assessing Whether Artificial Intelligence is an Enabler or an Inhibitor of
Sustainability at Indicator Level. Transportation Engineering 4: 100064.
Henderson, P., J. Hu, J. Romoff, E. Brunskill, D. Jurafsky, and J. Pineau. 2020. Towards the
Systematic Reporting of the Energy and Carbon Footprints of Machine Learning. Journal of
Machine Learning Research 21 (248): 1–43.
Hilbert, M. 2016. Big Data for Development: A Review of Promises and Challenges. Development
Policy Review 34 (1): 135–174.
Hutson, M. 2017. AI Glossary: Artificial Intelligence, in So Many Words. Science 357 (6346):
19–19. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.357.6346.19.
Ismagilova, E., L. Hughes, Y.K. Dwivedi, and K.R. Raman. 2019. Smart Cities: Advances in
Research—An Information Systems Perspective. International Journal of Information
Management 47: 88–100.
Israilidis, J., K. Odusanya, and M.U. Mazhar. 2021. Exploring Knowledge Management
Perspectives in Smart City Research: A Review and Future Research Agenda. International
Journal of Information Management 56: 101989.
Kirwan, C.G., and F. Zhiyong. 2020. Smart Cities and Artificial Intelligence: Convergent Systems
for Planning, Design, and Operations. Elsevier.
Kuffer, M., D.R. Thomson, G. Boo, R. Mahabir, T. Grippa, S. Vanhuysse, R. Engstrom, R. Ndugwa,
J. Makau, E. Darin, et al. 2020. The Role of Earth Observation in an Integrated Deprived Area
Mapping “System” for Low-to-Middle Income Countries. Remote Sensing 12 (6): 982.
Kuffer, M., J. Wang, D.R. Thomson, S. Georganos, A. Abascal, M. Owusu, and S. Vanhuysse.
2021. Spatial Information Gaps on Deprived Urban Areas (Slums) in Low-and-Middle-
Income-Countries: A User-Centered Approach. Urban Science 5 (4): 72.
Li, L., X. Xia, B. Chen, and L. Sun. 2018. Public Participation in Achieving Sustainable
Development Goals in China: Evidence from the Practice of Air Pollution Control. Journal of
Cleaner Production 201: 499–506.
Magni, G. 2017. Indigenous Knowledge and Implications for the Sustainable Development
Agenda. European Journal of Education 52 (4): 437–447.
Majumdar, S., M.M. Subhani, B. Roullier, A. Anjum, and R. Zhu. 2021. Congestion Prediction
for Smart Sustainable Cities Using IoT and Machine Learning Approaches. Sustainable Cities
and Society 64: 102500.
Makondo, C.C., and D.S. Thomas. 2018. Climate Change Adaptation: Linking Indigenous
Knowledge with Western Science for Effective Adaptation. Environmental Science & Policy
88: 83–91.
Martens, J. 2019. Revisiting the Hardware of Sustainable Development. Reshaping 11–19.
Micheletti, M., D. Stolle, and D. Berlin. 2014. Sustainable Citizenship: The Role of Citizens and
Consumers as Agents of the Environmental State. In State and Environment: The Comparative
Study of Environmental Governance, 203–236.
Munsaka, E., and E. Dube. 2018. The Contribution of Indigenous Knowledge to Disaster Risk
Reduction Activities in Zimbabwe: A Big Call to Practitioners. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster
Risk Studies 10 (1): 1–8.
Newman, G., T. Shi, Z. Yao, D. Li, G. Sansom, K. Kirsch, G. Casillas, and J. Horney. 2020. Citizen
Science-Informed Community Master Planning: Land Use and Built Environment Changes
to Increase Flood Resilience and Decrease Contaminant Exposure. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 17 (2): 486.
Nilsson, M., D. Griggs, and M. Visbeck. 2016. Policy: Map the Interactions Between Sustainable
Development Goals. Nature News 534 (7607): 320.
Palomares, I., E. Martínez-Cámara, R. Montes, P. García-Moral, M. Chiachio, J. Chiachio,
S. Alonso, F.J. Melero, D. Molina, B. Fernández, et al. 2021. A Panoramic View and Swot
Analysis of Artificial Intelligence for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030:
Progress and Prospects. Applied Intelligence 51: 6497–6527.
Pekmezovic, A. 2019. The UN and Goal Setting: From the MDGs to the SDGs. In Sustainable
Development Goals: Harnessing Business to Achieve the SDGs Through Finance, Technology,
and Law Reform, 17–35.
Rabah, K. 2018. Convergence of AI, IoT, Big Data and Blockchain: A Review. The Lake Institute
Journal 1 (1): 1–18.
Rajan, K., and A. Saffiotti. 2017. Towards a Science of Integrated AI and Robotics. Artificial
Intelligence 247: 1–9.
Reddick, C.G., R. Enriquez, R.J. Harris, and B. Sharma. 2020. Determinants of Broadband
Access and Affordability: An Analysis of a Community Survey on the Digital Divide. Cities
106: 102904.
Rogers, B., G. Dunn, K. Hammer, W. Novalia, F. de Haan, L. Brown, R. Brown, S. Lloyd,
C. Urich, T. Wong, et al. 2020. Water Sensitive Cities Index: A Diagnostic Tool to Assess Water
Sensitivity and Guide Management Actions. Water Research 186: 116411.
Rubio-Mozos, E., F.E. García-Muiña, and L. Fuentes-Moraleda. 2019. Rethinking 21st-Century
Businesses: An Approach to Fourth Sector SMEs in Their Transition to a Sustainable Model
Committed to SDGs. Sustainability 11 (20): 5569.
Salehi, M., L.I. Rusu, T.M. Lynar, and A. Phan. 2016. Dynamic and Robust Wildfire Risk Prediction
System: An Unsupervised Approach. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International
Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD 2016), San Francisco, California,
USA, ed. B. Krishnapuram, M. Shah, A. J. Smola, C. C. Aggarwal, D. Shen, and R. Rastogi,

245–254. ACM.
Samoili, S., M. López-Cobo, E. Gómez, G. De Prato, F. Martínez-Plumed, and B. Delipetrev.
2020. AI Watch Defining Artificial Intelligence. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union.
Saner, R., L. Yiu, and M. Nguyen. 2020. Monitoring the SDGs: Digital and Social Technologies
to Ensure Citizen Participation, Inclusiveness and Transparency. Development Policy Review
38 (4): 483–500.
Șerban, A.C., and M.D. Lytras. 2020. Artificial Intelligence for Smart Renewable Energy Sector
in Europe—Smart Energy Infrastructures for Next Generation Smart Cities. IEEE Access 8:
77364–77377.
Shahid, N., M.A. Shah, A. Khan, C. Maple, and G. Jeon. 2021. Towards Greener Smart Cities and
Road Traffic Forecasting Using Air Pollution Data. Sustainable Cities and Society 72: 103062.
Sharda, S., M. Singh, and K. Sharma. 2021. Demand Side Management Through Load Shifting
in IoT Based Hems: Overview, Challenges and Opportunities. Sustainable Cities and Society
65: 102517.
Solecki, W., C. Rosenzweig, S. Dhakal, D. Roberts, A.S. Barau, S. Schultz, and D. Urge-Vorsatz.
2018. City Transformations in a 1.5 c Warmer World. Nature Climate Change 8 (3): 177–181.
Sougkakis, V., K. Lymperopoulos, N. Nikolopoulos, N. Margaritis, P. Giourka, and K. Angelakoglou.
2020. An Investigation on the Feasibility of Near-Zero and Positive Energy Communities in the
Greek Context. Smart Cities 3 (2): 362–384.
Taddeo, M., A. Tsamados, J. Cowls, and L. Floridi. 2021. Artificial Intelligence and the Climate
Emergency: Opportunities, Challenges, and Recommendations. One Earth 4 (6): 776–779.
Tajunisa, M., L. Sadath, and R.S. Nair. 2021. Nanotechnology and Artificial Intelligence for
Precision Medicine in Oncology, Artificial Intelligence, 103–122. CRC Press.
Thinyane, M. 2018. Engaging citizens for sustainable development: a data perspective. United
Nations University Institute on Computing and Society.
Tomašev, N., J. Cornebise, F. Hutter, S. Mohamed, A. Picciariello, B. Connelly, D.C. Belgrave,
D. Ezer, F.C. van der Haert, F. Mugisha, et al. 2020. AI for Social Good: Unlocking the
Opportunity for Positive Impact. Nature Communications 11 (1): 1–6.
UNDESA Statistics Division. 2021. SDG Indicators Metadata Repository. https://unstats.un.org/
sdgs/metadata/?Text= & Goal=11 & Target=. Accessed 30 Sept 2021.
United Nations. 2015. Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform Our World. United
Nations [Online]. Available: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/energy/. Accessed 04
June 2018.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). 2015. Transforming Our
World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
van Wynsberghe, A. 2021. Sustainable AI: AI for Sustainability and the Sustainability of AI. AI
and Ethics 1(3), 213–218.
Villagra, A., E. Alba, and G. Luque. 2020. A Better Understanding on Traffic Light Scheduling:
New Cellular Gas and New In-Depth Analysis of Solutions. Journal of Computational Science
41: 101085.
M. Tegmark, and F.F. Nerini. 2020. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Communications 11 (1): 1–10.
Walker, J., A. Pekmezovic, and G. Walker. 2019. Sustainable Development Goals: Harnessing
Business to Achieve the SDGs Through Finance, Technology and Law Reform. Wiley.
Yatoo, S.A., P. Sahu, M.H. Kalubarme, and B.B. Kansara. 2020. Monitoring Land Use Changes
and Its Future Prospects Using Cellular Automata Simulation and Artificial Neural Network for
Ahmedabad City, India. GeoJournal 87, 765–786.
Yigitcanlar, T., M. Kamruzzaman, M. Foth, J. Sabatini-Marques, E. da Costa, and G. Ioppolo.
2019. Can Cities Become Smart Without Being Sustainable? A Systematic Review of the
Literature. Sustainable Cities and Society 45: 348–365.
Zheng, C., J. Yuan, L. Zhu, Y. Zhang, and Q. Shao. 2020. From Digital to Sustainable: A
Scientometric Review of Smart City Literature Between 1990 and 2019. Journal of Cleaner
Production 258: 120689.
Zook, M., M. Graham, T. Shelton, and S. Gorman. 2010. Volunteered Geographic Information
and Crowdsourcing Disaster Relief: A Case Study of the Haitian Earthquake. World Medical
Health Policy 2 (2): 2. https://doi.org/10.2202/1948-4682.1069.
Index
A Aristotle, 99, 121

Abdrisaev, B., 270–284 Artificial intelligence (AI), 9, 35, 44, 66, 100,
Acemoglu, D., 186 117, 135, 167, 185, 204, 232, 254,
Adeniyi, A.A., 139 270, 292, 328, 349, 367, 381, 400,
Adeshina, S.A., 14, 16, 19, 133–141 424, 462
Africa, 5, 14, 16, 36, 38, 51, 101, 103–105, Artificial neural network (ANN), 6, 148, 295,
109, 110, 134–141, 157, 208, 209, 391, 425–427, 429, 431,
222, 381, 414, 417, 418 433–437, 471
Agarwal, S., 380–395 Ayaz, M., 384
Agrast, M.D., 140 Azizpour, H., 37, 66–85
Agricultural management, 21, 381
Agriculture, 6, 19–21, 27, 36, 37, 40, 45, 50,
73, 80, 100, 103, 152, 159, 161, B
172, 198, 235, 273, 278, 283, Bakker, C.A., 352
380–395, 402–405, 408, 413, 415, Ban, Y., 66–85
417, 418, 427 Bayesian network (BN), 149, 150
AI for climate change, 408–409 Bayes, T., 149
AI for SDGs, 10–14, 16, 18, 21, 23–25, 28, Ben Ayed, R., 384
29, 44–60, 298–301, 400, 463–465 Berg, M.R. Van den, 352
AI for social good, 4, 5, 10, 14, 21, 22, 24, 25, Bezos, J., 40
44, 45, 147, 162, 232, 235–239, Big Tech, 6, 11, 15–19, 44, 45, 47, 49–52,
245, 339, 477, 478 57–59, 220, 238, 243, 244
AI in community, 19, 44–60 Big Tech corporations, 16, 50, 232, 238, 239,
Aina, O., 133–141 241, 243–245
AI4SDG, 468–469, 477, 478 Bioethics, 122, 123
Algorithmic art, 25, 329, 332, 335, Blaiklock, A., 28
336, 339–342 Boserup, E., 100
Al Tamimi, Y., 256 Botero, A., 140
Amran, A., 221 Boutilier, R.G., 242
Amsterdam, G., 116 Braidotti, R., 341
Analytical Hierarchy Process, 18, 366, 370 Bressanelli, G., 348
Andrenelli, A., 194 Brussels, 168
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to 485
Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21147-8
486 Index
Burch, K., 278 Eivazi, H., 66–85

Business model, 5, 6, 10, 15, 17, 18, 37, 49, Empowerment, 54, 55, 60, 331
204, 232, 238–245, 331, 348–355, Environment, 4–6, 49, 57, 66, 68, 72, 73,
357–359, 366 75–78, 84, 118, 123, 127, 154, 159,
Buston, O., 69 169, 174, 206, 209, 214, 220, 221,
234, 235, 241, 254, 255, 263, 265,
270, 272, 274–276, 283, 295, 300,
C 306, 329, 331, 334, 338, 341, 348,
Capasso, M., 16, 17, 233 350, 352, 359, 368, 376, 383, 395,
Carney, M., 40 404, 408, 427, 463, 466, 467
Chan, Y.J., 146–162 Environment, society, and government (ESG),
Cheah, S.-M., 146–162 6, 17, 25, 205, 207, 210–213, 219,
Chomanski, B., 16 221, 348
Cicero, M.T., 121 Ethical AI, 25, 335, 340
Circular economy, 18, 81, 185, 220, 349, 359 Ethics, 3–7, 11, 14, 21, 44, 52, 59, 70, 71, 111,
Cirillo, 296 120–123, 127, 129, 169, 178, 204,
Citizen participation, 77, 465, 475, 476 212, 213, 215, 276, 282, 283, 298,
Climate change, 5, 10, 26, 38–41, 45, 72, 331, 332, 335, 341, 376, 467
79–81, 83, 85, 126, 135, 159–161, Experimental museology, 329, 333, 335
179, 205, 207, 210, 220, 222, 233, Ezzedine, T., 305–323
273, 281, 282, 348, 366, 375, 380,
385, 387, 390, 402, 404–408, 410,
418, 442, 462, 463, 465–467, F
474, 479 Fang, H., 66–85
Collective intelligence, 38, 39 Fan, Z., 185, 196
Conrad Foley, J., 400–419 Farooq, M., 385
Cowls, J., 462 Farrell, M., 193
Crawford, K., 51 Feature selection, 431
Fenech, M.E., 69
Financial inclusion, 17, 146–148, 157, 158,
D 162, 196, 204, 205, 207, 208, 210,
Daño, N., 241 213–216, 218, 219, 222
Darwin, C., 427 Findlay, M., 5, 19, 44–60
Decision science, 366 Fink, L., 40
Degbelo, A., 26, 462–478 Fintech, 204, 206–211, 214, 216–219,
DeGhetto, K., 134 221, 222
del Rio, B., 12, 14, 24 Finucan, L., 140
del Rio, V.B., 168–180 Floridi, L., 3–7, 10–29, 232, 235, 261, 331
De, R.K., 431 Fomunyam, K.G., 109
Digital archives, 260 Food productivity, 21, 160
Digital self-determination, 19, 20, 54, 55, Forti, M., 23, 254–265
57, 58, 60 Fourth Industrial Revolution, 184, 189,
Dignity, 20, 26, 48, 57, 60, 116, 117, 120–124, 199, 205
127–129, 216, 220, 263 Fraisl, D., 465
Discrimination, 19, 47, 48, 51, 54, 172, 176, Fuso Nerini, F., 66–85
261, 299, 464
Doughnut economics, 116–120, 123, 124,
128, 129 G
Dziri, J., 27, 305–323 García-Micó, T.G., 27, 292–301
Gates, B., 40
Gay, D., 256
E Gebru, T., 328
Eccles, R.G., 211 Gender, 6, 48, 70, 107, 120, 127, 155,
Efremova, N., 400–419 172–176, 204, 215, 235, 261, 263,
Index 487
277, 279, 280, 292–301, 332, 339, I

386, 391, 425, 442, 447 Identity, 6, 23, 59, 205, 254–265, 293, 332,
Genetic algorithm (GA), 425, 333, 335
427–428, 433–435 Illingworth, S.J., 76
Ghoreishi, M., 348–359 Impact assessment, 11, 17, 25–28, 195, 198,
Glenn, L.M., 270–284 223, 366, 368, 369, 375, 376
Global Citizenship Education Inclusive student-engaged learning, 268–284
(GCED), 146–148 Industry 4.0, 18, 349, 350, 359
Global pandemic, 47 Inequality, 5, 15, 19, 24, 25, 27, 44–60, 69, 70,
Global reports, 424, 429, 435, 438 85, 98–111, 119, 146, 172–176,
Golzar, F., 66–85 179, 184, 213, 220, 223, 239, 254,
Good AI society, 45 262, 271, 277, 292, 298, 300–301,
Good health, 5, 27, 47, 66, 69, 70, 84, 330, 334, 337, 391, 394, 425, 443,
134–136, 175, 292, 298, 463, 464
425, 446 Innovation, 15, 25, 27, 36–38, 40, 45, 51–55,
Goralski, M.A., 98–111 98, 100–103, 105, 108–111, 135,
Governance, 5, 6, 10–17, 19, 22, 25, 28, 36, 141, 146, 168, 173, 177, 180, 187,
37, 45, 53, 57, 85, 134, 139, 151, 195, 196, 204–207, 220, 222, 223,
185, 188, 189, 204–223, 239, 243, 233, 234, 239, 242, 271, 277, 292,
244, 259, 274, 333, 466 298, 300–301, 329, 334, 336, 348,
Gray, J.R., 134 349, 354, 358, 402, 425, 435, 437,
Greene, D., 240 463, 466
Griggs, D., 205 Insights, O., 138
Güemes, A., 77 Israilidis, J., 462
Gupta, K., 442
Gupta, S., 26, 66–85, 462–478
Gwagwa, A., 50 J
Jaynes, T.L., 20, 270–284
Jean, N., 75
H Jensen, F.V., 149
Hall, S., 255 Jo, E.S., 328
Hamilton, M., 337 Jordan, T., 46
Hammarskjöld, D., 330 Joseph, D., 100
Hanana, M., 384 Joseph, L., 243
Happonen, A., 350, 351
Haraway, D.J., 341
Health, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 36, 37, 47, 66–70, K
73, 80, 82, 85, 101–106, 109, 111, Kant, I., 121
118, 120, 135–137, 139–141, 146, Kaplan, D., 149
147, 151–156, 159, 171, 198, 205, Karimi, R., 400–419
214, 216, 238, 244, 273, 292–301, Karo, E., 366–377
306, 335, 355, 356, 384, 405, 408, Kashmere, B., 328
409, 414, 418, 425, 452, 458, Khandelwal, 381
462–464, 466 Kheradmand, E., 442
Herweijer, C., 193 Khor, A.C., 146–162
Hoffman, R.L. Dr., 102 Khulief, Y.A., 308
Holland, J., 427 Kiggundu, M.N., 134
Honkela, T., 367 Kleinman, Z., 102
Honnibal, M., 450 Koditala, N.K., 307
Hosseini, Z., 76 Korb, K.B., 149
How, M.-L., 25, 146–162 Kramer, O., 427
488 Index
Kwet, M., 50 Natural language processing (NLP), 16, 38,

Kwok, R., 38 138, 148, 204, 211, 213, 300, 445,
449–452, 467
Natural language understanding, 450
L New technologies, 13, 39, 49, 60, 100, 105,
Larose, D.T., 431 111, 175, 177, 179, 184–188, 191,
Laukyte, M., 292–301 195, 199, 235, 270, 274, 331
Leak detection, 306, 308, 320, 322, 323 Ng, A., 135
Leite, I., 37, 66–85 Nicholson, A.E., 149
Lejarraga, I., 192 Non-discrimination, 49, 261
Levy, R., 149 Non-traditional students, 280, 283
Liiv, I., 17, 366–377 Nussbaum, M.C., 122
Lumley, J.L., 76
Lung, N., 102
O
Ong, L.M., 44–60
M Open data, 59, 191, 193, 444, 470
Mallor, F., 66–85
Malthus, T.R., 99, 100
Manera, A., 186 P
Marr, B., 272 Pal, N.K., 431
Marshall, Z., 293 Pal, S.K., 431
Mas, F., 382 Pashang, S., 204–223
Matus, K., 188 Pasquale, F., 239
Mazzi, F., 3–7, 10–29 Peace and justice, 120, 127, 140
McCarthy, J., 100 Peras, M., 442
McGregor, A.J., 297 Person, 22, 176, 177, 211, 216, 254–257, 260,
McKenzie, B., 168–180 262, 292, 295, 330, 364, 376, 402,
Melsion, G.I., 66–85 479, 480
Migrants, 28, 218, 255, 259, 262 Plato, 99
Mirghaderi, S.-H., 424–438 Ponce, A., 140
Mishra, J.L., 353 Poverty alleviation, 12, 98–111
Monitoring, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25–28, 40, 45, 67, Power, 13, 16, 18, 20, 40, 41, 44–60, 83,
71, 77, 81, 85, 194, 208, 216, 243, 98, 99, 101, 107, 125, 140,
273, 300, 306–308, 310, 311, 348, 174, 207, 212, 213, 220, 222,
350, 355, 356, 382–384, 400, 405, 234, 239, 241, 242, 244, 256,
407–410, 414, 417–419, 462, 463, 261, 307, 328, 329, 333–335,
465, 468, 469, 471, 473–476, 478 367, 377, 395, 406
Montani, I., 450 Prestes, E., 380–395
Morin, E., 340 Prifti, K., 115–129
Mountain communities, 6, 20, 270–284 Public policy, 180
Mulgan, G., 15, 35–41 Public-private partnerships, 41
Mulugetta, Y., 190 Pynnönen, M., 348–359
Murphy, K., 70
Museums, 6, 25, 328–341
Q
Quality, 18–21, 24, 26–28, 48, 56, 73, 77, 83,
N 85, 104–110, 139, 141, 147, 151,
Nagaraju, U., 380–395 152, 155, 157, 160, 175, 195, 198,
Naicker, S., 135 206, 221, 277, 306, 307, 310, 313,
Named entity recognition (NER), 445–451, 314, 316, 320, 323, 348, 353, 381,
453, 454, 456, 457 382, 384, 385, 390, 393, 402, 406,
Index 489
407, 425, 431, 437, 443, 448, 456, 328–342, 348, 349, 352, 353, 357,
458, 462, 463, 465, 468, 469, 471, 385, 389, 394, 424, 425, 427, 444,
473, 475, 476, 478, 479 445, 457, 464, 465
Sustainable cities, 7, 26, 66, 75, 84, 171, 233,
277, 402, 425, 462–478
R Sustainable development, 4, 27, 44–46, 48, 50,
Rajesh, N., 140 53, 60, 69, 71, 83, 98, 110, 115,
Rangeland monitoring, 6, 400 116, 134, 141, 146, 148, 151, 152,
Ravallion, M., 99 162, 171–174, 184–199, 204–207,
Raworth, K., 123 212, 213, 220, 222, 223, 233, 240,
Restrepo, P., 186 245, 270–284, 328–332, 334, 335,
Reynolds, R.G., 329 340, 341, 348, 388, 400, 424, 429,
Riley, P., 255, 256, 261 437, 442, 457, 462–466,
Rubio, V., 382 476, 478
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 4, 9,
35, 44, 66, 98, 116, 133, 168, 184,
S 204, 232, 254, 270, 292, 331, 348,
Saaty, T., 17, 366 366, 383, 400, 424, 462
Saaty, T.L., 369 Sustainable development goals index (SDGI),
Sætra, H.S., 240 6, 151–154, 424–426, 429, 431,
Say, E.M.P., 146–162 432, 435, 437, 438
Schulze, E., 244 Sustainable finance, 16–19, 204–223
SDG 2, 425 Sustainable Technology Board (STB), 13, 184,
SDG 11, 425, 462–478 186–189, 195, 196, 199
Self, 255, 256, 261 SusTech, 184–199
Serafeim, G., 211 SusTech solutions, 184–187, 190,
Sharma, 18 191, 193–199
Sierra, E.B., 140
Sierra, L.A., 10
Singha, N., 380–395 T
Sirmacek, B., 26, 66–85 Taddeo, M., 10–29
Sitra, 348 Tahhan, A.S., 297
Smith, K., 66–85 Tan, T.K., 98–111
Smith, M., 240 Taurino, G., 328–342
Snower, D., 193 Techno-colonialism, 49–52
Snow, J., 39 Teplov, R., 348–359
Social license, 6, 232–245 Thomson, I., 242
Soe, R.-M., 366–377 Timpson, W.M., 279
Sotelo, J., 185, 196 Treves, L., 348–359
Sottoriva, A. Dr., 293 Twomey, P., 193
Sperotto, A., 149
Spezzatti, A., 442–458
Stephenson, M., 13, 184–199 U
Stilgoe, J., 52 Umbrello, S., 16, 17, 236
Straub, V., 41 Urbinati, A., 353
Stroehle, J., 211
Strubell, E., 300
Stylianou-Lambert, T., 333, 334 V
Sustainability, 3, 6, 10, 15, 16, 25, 26, 28, 44, Value creation, 18, 348, 349, 352–356,
49, 52–56, 60, 78, 100, 111, 115, 358, 359
120, 146, 148, 151–154, 159–162, van de Poel, I., 236
174, 178, 186, 189, 195, 196, 198, Vapnik, V.N., 316
205, 206, 211, 212, 220, 221, 223, Victor, D.G., 40
239, 241–243, 245, 300, 301, Vinuesa, R., 10, 37, 66–85, 240
490 Index
W Y
Waal, A. de, 134 Yang, R., 108
Water, 6, 21, 27, 73, 74, 85, 104, 119, 120, Yarime, M., 184–199
125, 135, 152, 161, 178, 272, 273, Yaya, S., 103
277, 305–323, 356, 380, 381, 383, Yoo, Y., 349
387–389, 393, 402, 404–408, 410,
413, 415, 425, 446, 462, 464, 469
Weber, O., 204–223 Z
Whittaker, M., 49 Zaminpeyma, R., 442
Williams, C., 28 Zhan, J., 184–199
Wireless sensor network (WSN), 306, 307, Ziesche, S., 380–395
309, 310, 312 Zuboff, S., 49
Wyatt, L.G., 279

The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence For The Sustainable Development Goals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence For The Sustainable Development Goals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence For The Sustainable Development Goals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philosophical Studies Series

The Ethics of Artificial

ISSN 0921-8599 ISSN 2542-8349 (electronic)

Part I AIxSDGs: Theory and Governance

Artificial Intelligence for Advancing Sustainable Development

Part II AIxSDGs: Existing and Potential Use Cases

Role of Artificial Intelligence in Advancing Sustainable Development

Baktybek Abdrisaev Department of History and Political Science, College of

H. Fang Division of Robotics, Perception, and Learning, KTH Royal Institute of

I. Leite Division of Robotics, Perception, and Learning, KTH Royal Institute of

Naman Singha AI Policy Labs, London, UK

Francesca Mazzi and Luciano Floridi

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) as a general-purpose technology has great

Keywords Artificial intelligence · Sustainable Development Goals · AI for social

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 3

behaviour of the agents involved (Floridi 2020). As a result of a public entity’s

discusses the use of AI for Sustainable Cities (SDG11), providing an overview of

Francesca Mazzi, Mariarosaria Taddeo, and Luciano Floridi

Abstract This chapter provides an overview of six topics related to governance,

Keywords Artificial intelligence · Sustainability · AI for SDGs · Ethics · Good

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 9

2 Governance and Collaboration

The implementation of AI for SDGs requires complex and coordinated actions. It is

homomorphic encryption4 to share data safely and securely, either as a complement

3 Private Investments and the Role of Big Tech Companies

This represents a challenge and among others a risk of further exploitation of

Different solutions and governance mechanisms could play a role in favouring an

technology finance instruments and of updating regulatory frameworks to create

4 AI and Communities

AI can either empower or disempower community-relevant meanings. Ong

5 AI and Individuals

Governance and regulation can play an irreplaceable role in addressing AI-related

6 Jobs and Skills

As stressed by Benedetti del Rio (2023), while regulating AI is an important step

The twofold challenge delineated above is of primary importance to limit unwanted

need to be integrated and connected according to the connections between the

Despite the objective difficulties in achieving a functioning and homogeneous

and for sustainable agriculture, as mentioned in Sect. 3 (Efremova et al. 2023).

8 Evaluation and Limitations

We provided an overview of six recurring challenges that, if left unaddressed, can

Circular Economy and Sustainable Development. 2019. Academic. https://doi.org/10.1016/

Keywords AI · SDGs · Collective intelligence · Public policy

1 Background on AI for the SDGs and Changing

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 35

2 Misalignment of R&D/STI and the SDGs

3 AI in the Context of Intelligence for the SDGs

4 From Supply Push to Demand Pull

5 Climate Change, Data and AI

of emissions to rise sharply.5 Blockchain, the technology behind bitcoin, is perhaps

Li Min Ong and Mark Findlay

Abstract Responsible AI design and deployment in alliance with the Sustainable

L. M. Ong (*) · M. Findlay

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 43

Keywords AI in community · Big Tech · Digital self-determination · Inequality ·

2 AI for Sustainable Development: The Hope, the Hype

3 Power, Inequality and Techno-solutionism

3.2 Design and Deployment of AI and Social Inequality

It is already largely recognised that digital divides and information asymmetries

stark differentials in access to technology. AI also creates new realms of discrimina-

Part I AIxSDGs: Theory and Governance

Artificial Intelligence for Advancing Sustainable Development

Part II AIxSDGs: Existing and Potential Use Cases

Role of Artificial Intelligence in Advancing Sustainable Development

2 Governance and Collaboration

3 Private Investments and the Role of Big Tech Companies

4 AI and Communities

5 AI and Individuals

6 Jobs and Skills

8 Evaluation and Limitations

1 Background on AI for the SDGs and Changing

2 Misalignment of R&D/STI and the SDGs

3 AI in the Context of Intelligence for the SDGs

4 From Supply Push to Demand Pull

5 Climate Change, Data and AI

2 AI for Sustainable Development: The Hope, the Hype

3 Power, Inequality and Techno-solutionism

3.2 Design and Deployment of AI and Social Inequality

4 Tech Companies Heralding a New Digital Colonialism?

4.1 Relationships of Dependency Affecting

4.2 Problem with AI Ethics

5.2 Theories and Systems Change

5.3 The Role of AI in Solutions

7 AI in Community for Communal Empowerment

Global Policy Journal. https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/articles/science-and-technology/

STEPS Centre. 2010. Innovation, Sustainability, Development: A New Manifesto. https://steps-

2 Improved Health Through AI

2.1 Shortage of Healthcare Workforce

2.2 One Health and AI

2.3 GeoAI for Precision Medicine

2.4 Ethical and Societal Considerations

3 Towards Sustainable Cities with the Help of AI

3.1 AI for Extracting Climate-Related Indicators from Cities

3.2 Non-intrusive Evaluation of Air Quality in Urban Areas

3.3 The Role of AI in Efficient and Sustainable

4 AI for Ambitious Climate-Action Targets

4.1 The Potential Role of Artificial Intelligence to Combat

4.2 AI in Support of Understanding Climate Change

4.3 AI in Support of Low-Carbon Energy Systems

4.4 AI in Service of Energy Efficiency

4.5 Engagement of AI on Climate Change

5 Conclusions and Outlook

2 A Brief Exploration of Various Theories of Poverty

3 The Relevant Connection of AI to Poverty Alleviation

2 The Doughnut Model

3 Dignity, But Which One

3.1 Traditional Conceptualisations of Human Dignity

3.2 A Shift in Ethics: From Agents to Patients

3.3 The Doughnut’s Allegiance

4 The AI and the Doughnut