Artificial Intelligence and Community Well-being: A Proposal for an Emerging Area of Research


We are calling for a new area of research on the nexus of community well-being and artificial intelligence (AI). Three components of this research we propose are (1) the development and use of well-being metrics to measure the impacts of AI; (2) the use of community-based approaches in the development of AI; and (3) development of AI interventions to safeguard or improve community well-being. After providing definitions of community, well-being, and community well-being, we suggest a definition of AI for use by community well-being researchers, with brief explanations of types and uses of AI within this context. A brief summary of threats and opportunities facing community well-being for which AI could potentially present solutions or exacerbate problems is provided. The three components we propose are then discussed, followed by our call for cross-sector, interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary and systems-based approaches for the formation of this proposed area of research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. AI for Social Good. (2019). AI for social good. Retrieved from Accessed December 23, 2019.

  2. Allen, J., Guinn, C., & Horvtz, E. (1999). Mixed-initiative interaction. IEEE Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, 14(5), 14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, J. & Rainie, L. (2018a). Artificial intelligence and the future of humans. Washington DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from Accessed December 23, 2019.

  4. Anderson, J. & Raine, L. (2018b). 3. Concerns about the future of people’s well-being. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  5. Argawal, A, Gans, J. & Goldfarb, A. (2017). What to expect from artificial intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  6. Bagnell, A., South, J., Mitchell, B., Pilkington, G., Newton R. & Di Martino, S. (2017). Systematic scoping review of indicators of community wellbeing in the UK. London, UK: What works for wellbeing. Retrieved from (select and click to download required). [online resource].

  7. Bostrom, N. (2018). The vulnerable world hypothesis. Oxford, UK: The Future of Humanity Institute. Retrieved from

  8. Breazeal, C. (2019). Living and flourishing with AI. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  9. Brown, V., Harris, J., & Russell, J. (Eds.). (2010). Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination. Washington DC: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brynjolfsson, E. & McAfee, A. (2017). The business of artificial intelligence: What it can - and cannot do - for your organization. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Review Publishing. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  11. Castells, M. & Cardoso, G. Eds. (2005). The network society: From knowledge to policy. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  12. Chui, M, Harrryson, M., Manyika, J. Roberts, R. Chung, R., Nel, P & van Huteren, A. (2018). Applying artificial intelligence for social good. McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  13. Cicirello, V. (2007). An interdisciplinary course on artificial intelligence designed for a liberal arts curriculum. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 23(3), 120–127. Retrieved from Accessed December 23, 2019.

  14. Ciuciu, I., Meersman, R., & Dillon, T. (2012). Social network of smart-metered homes and SMEs for grid-based renewable energy exchange. In Paper presented at 6th IEEE international conference on digital ecosystems and technologies (DEST). Campione d’Italia: Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Computer History Museum. (n.d.). John McCarthy 1999 fellow. Retrieved from [Online Resource]. Accessed December 23, 2019.

  16. Cowls, J., & Floridi, L. (2018). Prolegomena to a white paper on an ethical framework for a good AI society. SSRN Electronic Journal.

  17. de Graaf, J., & Batker, D. (2011). What’s the economy for anyway. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Durand, M. (2018). Countries’ experiences with well-being and happiness metrics. In J. Sachs, A. Adler, A. Bin Bisher, J. de Neve, M. Durand, E. Diener, J. Helliwell, R. Layard, & M. Seligman (Eds.), Global happiness policy report. New York, NY: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dutta, S. & Bilboa-Osorio, B. (2012). The global information technology report 2012. Geneva, Switzerland: The World Economic Forum. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  20. Emspak, J. (2017). What is intelligence? 20 years after Deep Blue, Ai still can’t think like humans. Live Science. Retrieved from Accessed December 23, 2019.

  21. Flateau, P., Galea, J., & Petridis, R. (2000). Mental health and wellbeing and unemployment. The Australian Economic Review, 22(2), 161–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  23. Friend, T. (2018, May 7). How frightened should we be of AI? The New Yorker. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  24. Gillam, C., & Charles, A. (2019). Community wellbeing: The impacts of inequality, racism and environment on a Brazilian coastal slum. World Development Perspectives, 12, 18–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gillespie, T. & Seaver, N. (2015). Critical algorithm studies: A reading list. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  26. GoodAI. (n.d.). General AI challenge by GoodAI. Retrieved from [Online Resource]. Accessed December 23, 2019.

  27. Goodman, E., & Powles, J. (2019). Urbanism under google: Lessons from sidewalk Toronto. Fordham Law Review. (Forthcoming).

  28. Google AI. (n.d.). Using AI for social good. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  29. Grace, K., Salvatier, J., Dafoe, A., Zhang, B. & Evans, O. (2018). When will AI exceed human performance? Evidence from AI experts. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 62, 729–754. Retrieved from

  30. Greenemeirer, L. (2017). 20 years after deep blue: How AI has advanced since conquering chess. Scientific American. Retrieved from

  31. Grollman, E. (2014). How discrimination hurts health and wellbeing. Scholar strategy network. Retrieved from

  32. Hager, G. Drobnix, A., Fang, F., Ghani, R., Greenwald, A., Lyons, T., … Tambe, M. (2019). Artificial intelligence for social good. Proceedings of a computing community consortium (CCC) workshop, Washington DC, USA, June 7th, 2016. Retrieved from

  33. Halaweh, M. (2018). Viewpoint: Artificial intelligence government (Gov. 3.0): The UAE leading model. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 62269–62272. doi: Retrieved from:

  34. Harari, Y. (2016). Homo Deus: A brief history of tomorrow. New York, NY: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hayes, G. (2011). The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction (article 15). ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction, 18(3), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. (2019). Ethically aligned design first edition. Piscataway, New Jersey: IEEE Publishing. Retrieved from [Online Resource – requires filling in a form to download]. Accessed December 23, 2019.

  37. International Bureau of Education. (n.d.). Transdisciplinary approach. Retrieved from [Online Resource]. Accessed December 23, 2019.

  38. Jiang, R., Chiappa, S., Lattimore, T., Gyorgy, A. & Kohli, P. (2019). Degenerate feedback loops in recommender systems. Proceedings of AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES ‘19), Honolulu, HI, USA, January 27-28, 2019. Retrieved from

  39. Johnson, B. (2018, July 26). AI use cases for communities & networks. Retrieved from [online resource].

  40. Kaplan, A., & Heanlein, M. (2018). Siri, Siri, in my hand: who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 62(1), 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 410–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lee, S., Kim, Y., & Phillips, R. (2015). Exploring the intersection of community well-being and community development. In: S. Lee, Y. Kim, & R. Phillips (Eds.), Community well-being and community development, SpringerBriefs in well-being and quality of life research (pp. 1–7). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Legg, S. (2008). Machine super intelligence (doctoral dissertation). University of Lugano, Lugano, Switzerland. Retrieved from

  44. Legg, S. & Hutter, M. (2006). A formal measure of machine intelligence. Procedures of 15th annual machine learning conference of Belgium and the Netherlands (pages 73–78), Gent, Belgium, May 11–12, 2016. Retrieved from

  45. Li, J., Cheng, H., Guo, H., & Qui, S. (2018). Survey on artificial intelligence for vehicles. Automotive Innovation, 1(1), 2–14.

  46. Lo, Y., Woo, C. & Ng, K. (2019). The necessary roadblock for artificial general intelligence: Corrigibility. Easy Chair Print, 846. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  47. Makridakis, S. (2017). The forthcoming artificial intelligence (AI) revolution: Its impact on society and firms. Futures, 90, 46–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. McGregor, J. (2007). Research well-being: From concepts to methodology. In I. Gough & J. A. McGregor (Eds.), Well-being in developing countries: From theory to research (pp. 316–355). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. McMichael, M., & Lindgren, E. (2011). Climate change: Present and future risks to health, and necessary responses. Journal of Internal Medicine, 207(5), 401–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mead, L. (2018). Global summit focuses on the role of artificial intelligence in advancing SDGs. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  51. Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. Hartland, VT: The Sustainability Institute. Retrieve from [Online Resource].

  52. Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in systems a primer by Donella Meadows. Hartland, VT: The Sustainability Institute. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  53. Microsoft. (n.d.). AI for good. Retrieved from [Online Resource]. Accessed December 23, 2019.

  54. Mims, C. (2019, June 1). Amazon’s plans to move into your next apartment before you do. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  55. Montes, G., & Goertzel, B. (2019). Distributed, decentralized, and democratized artificial intelligence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 354–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Muller, V., & Bostrom, N. (2016). Future Progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion. In V. Muller (Ed.), Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence (pp. 553–571). NYL Springer: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Musikanski, L., Polley, C., Cloutier, S., Berejnoi, E., & Colbert, J. (2017). Happiness in communities: How neighborhoods, cities and states use subjective well-being metrics. Journal of Social Change, 9(1), 32–35. Retrieved from .

  58. Musikanski, L., Havens, J. & Gunsch, G. (2018). IEEE P7010 well-being metrics standard for autonomous and intelligence systems. IEEE Standards Association. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  59. Orash, A. (2019). Platform governance and the Smart City: Examining citizenship in Alphabet’s ‘sidewalk Toronto.’ Digitalization challenges to democracy, 19/1. Hamilton, CA: McMaster University. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  60. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2011). Your better life index. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from [Online Resource]. Accessed December 23, 2019.

  61. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2019a) Artificial intelligence in society. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from [Online Resource]. Accessed December 23, 2019.

  62. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2019b). How’s life in the digital age? Opportunities and risks of the digital transformation for People’s well-being. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from [Online Resource]. Accessed December 23, 2019.

  63. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2019c). Measuring well-being and progress. OECD Better Life Initiative. Retrieved from [Online Resource]. Accessed December 23, 2019.

  64. Pan, Y. (2016). Heading toward artificial intelligence 2.0. Engineering, 2(4), 409–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Pecl, G., Araujo, M., Bell, J., Blanchard, J., Bonebrake, T., Chen, I., et al. (2017). Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science, 355(6332), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Pfeffer, J. & Mayer, K. (n.d.). Critical data and algorithm studies. Retrieved from

  67. Phillips, R. (2003). Community indicators. PAS report no. 517. Chicago: American Planning Association.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Phillips, R., & Pittman, R. (Eds.). (2015). An introduction to community development. London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

  69. Phillips, R., & Wong, C. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of community well-being research. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Rahwan, I. (2017). Society-in-the-loop: Programming the algorithmic social contract. Ethics and Information Technology, 20(1), 5–14. Accessed 23 Dec 2019.

  71. Rahwan, I. & Cebrian, M. (2018, March 29). Machine behavior needs to be an academic discipline. Retrieved from

  72. Reinhart, R. (2018, March 6). Most Americans already using artificial intelligence products. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  73. Rittel, H. & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4:2(155–169). Retrieved from Accessed 23 Dec 2019.

  74. Seaver, N. (2017). Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Sheridan, T. (2006). Supervisory control. In G. Slavendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 1025–1052). Hoboken, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  76. Shirado, H., & Christakis, N. (2017). Locally noisy autonomous agents improve global human coordination in network experiments. Nature, 545, 370–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Shklovski, I., Palen, L., & Sutton, J. (2008). Finding community through information and communication technology through disaster response, Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 127–136). San Diego, CA.

  78. Sirgy, M., Phillips, R., & Rahtz, D. (2009). Community quality-of-life indicators: Best cases II. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Statisica. (2018). The 100 largest companies in the world by market value in 2018 (in billion US dollars). Retrieved from [Online Resource]. Accessed December 23, 2019.

  80. Stenfors, S. (2017). You and me in a cyborg society. Retrieved from youtu.Be/31M82WBS08k [online resource].

  81. Stone, P., Brooks, R., Brynjolfsson, E., Calo, R., Etzioni, O., Hager, G., ... Astro Teller A. (2016). Artificial intelligence and life in 2030. One hundred year study on artificial intelligence: Report of the 2015–2016 study panel. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Accessed from: [Online Resource].

  82. Sung, H., & Phillips, R. (2018). Indicators and community well-being: Exploring a relational framework. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 1(1), 63–79. Accessed 23 Dec 2019.

  83. Tepper, J., & Hearn, D. (2019). The myth of capitalism. Hoboken, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  84. Topol, E. (2019). High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine, 24, 44–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Turning, A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 49, 433–460. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  86. Twenge, J. (2019) Chapter 5: The sad state of happiness in the United States and the role of social media. In J. Helliwell, R. Layard, & J. Sachs (Eds). World happiness report 2019. New York, NY: Sustainable Solutions Network. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  87. Victorian Government. (2018). Gender inequality affects everyone. Retrieved from [online resource].

  88. Wall, L. (2018). Some financial regulatory implications of artificial intelligence. Journal of Economics and Business, 100, 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Wang, F. (2012). A big-data perspective on AI: Newton, Merton, and analytics intelligence. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 27(5), 2–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. West, D. & Allen, J. (2018, April 24). How artificial intelligence is transforming the world. Washington DC: The Brooking Institute. Retrieved from [Online Resource].

  91. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2018). The inner level: How more equal societies reduce stress, restore sanity and improve Everyone’s wellbeing. London, England: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Yang, Y. & Siau, K. (2018). A qualitative research on marketing and sales in the artificial intelligence age. Paper presented at Midwest United States Association for Information Systems (MWAIS) 2018 proceedings, St. Louis, Missouri. Retrieved from

  93. Zhu, F., Li, Z., Chen, S., & Xiong, G. (2016). Parallel transportation management and control system and its applications in building smart cities. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 17(6), 1576–1585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Appreciation to Sari Stenfors, Augmented Leadership Institute, for comments.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Musikanski.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interests. No.

research involving human or animal participants was involved in the formation of this essay. All relevant ethical standards were observed.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Musikanski, L., Rakova, B., Bradbury, J. et al. Artificial Intelligence and Community Well-being: A Proposal for an Emerging Area of Research. Int. Journal of Com. WB 3, 39–55 (2020).

Download citation


  • Artificial intelligence
  • Community well-being
  • Well-being indicators
  • Community indicators