Commentary

Big Data & Society

July–December: 1–5
AI ethics and data governance in the © The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
geospatial domain of Digital Earth sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20539517221138767
journals.sagepub.com/home/bds

Marina Micheli1 , Caroline M Gevaert2 , Mary Carman3 ,

Max Craglia1, Emily Daemen4, Rania E Ibrahim5 ,
Alexander Kotsev1 , Zaffar Mohamed-Ghouse6, Sven Schade1 ,
Ingrid Schneider7, Lea A Shanley8 , Alessio Tartaro9
and Michele Vespe1

Abstract
Digital Earth applications provide a common ground for visualizing, simulating, and modeling real-world situations. The
potential of Digital Earth applications has increased significantly with the evolution of artificial intelligence systems and
the capacity to collect and process complex amounts of geospatial data. Yet, the widespread techno-optimism at the
root of Digital Earth must now confront concerns over high-risk artificial intelligence systems and power asymmetries
of a datafied society. In this commentary, we claim that not only can current debates about data governance and ethical
artificial intelligence inform development in the field of Digital Earth, but that the specificities of geospatial data, together
with the expectations surrounding Digital Earth applications, offer a fruitful lens through which to examine current
debates on data governance and artificial intelligence ethics. In particular, we argue that for the implementation of ethical
artificial intelligence and inclusive approaches to data governance, Digital Earth initiatives need to involve stakeholders and
communities at the local level and be sensitive to social, legal, cultural, and institutional contexts, including conflicts that
might arise within those contexts.

Keywords
Artificial intelligence ethics, data governance, digital earth, local context, geospatial domain, ethics guidelines

Introduction
Digital Earth (DE) can be defined as a multidimensional 1
Digital Economy Unit, European Commission Joint Research Centre,
representation of the planet capturing natural, social, and Ispra, Italy
cultural phenomena (Goodchild et al., 2012; ISDE, 2012). 2
Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, University of
Underpinned by both structured and unstructured, open or Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
3
proprietary, spatial–temporal data, DE makes use of Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg,
South Africa
digital technologies to visualize, simulate, and model real- 4
Geonovum, Amersfoort, the Netherlands
world situations. The concept of DE, initially popularized 5
Scientific Publishing and Documentation, National Authority for Remote
by Gore (1998), has long been loaded with the Sensing and Space Sciences, Cairo, Egypt
6
techno-optimism that often surrounds new technologies. Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne,
DE has even been envisaged as a platform to support Melbourne, Australia
7
Faculty for Mathematics, Informatics, and Natural Sciences, Department
national and international cooperation for global sustainable
of Computer Engineering, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
development, economic growth, and well-being (ISDE, 8
The International Computer Science Institute (ICSI) in Berkeley, CA
2012). The optimistic vision of DE from 10 years ago, 9
Dipartimento di Scienze umanistiche, Università degli Studi di Sassari,
however, could not fully anticipate the impact of big data, Sassari, Italy
machine learning, and artificial intelligence (AI) systems
Corresponding author:
on the field.1 These are crucial for DE’s development due Marina Micheli, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Digital
to the high volumes of data coming from multiple sources Economy Unit, Via Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, VA, Italy.
—from remote sensing to crowdsourcing projects—and Email: marina.micheli@ec.europa.eu

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and
distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.
sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 Big Data & Society
the need to integrate data to build complex multiscale and
multisector models.
In this commentary, we argue that DE offers a fruitful
lens through which to address current debates on data gov-
ernance and the ethical use of AI. In our view, the many
important issues being discussed about the ethics of AI
are fundamentally about both the data and the algorithms
used by AI. We propose that not only can current debates
about data governance and ethical AI inform development
in the field of DE, but also the distinct characteristics of
DE (and of the geospatial information from which it is
built) can also inform data governance and ethical AI
debates more generally.
There are many reasons why DE and the geospatial
domain provide valuable insights for discussions on data
governance and ethical AI.
First, while the collection of geospatial data by private
sector operators is becoming ubiquitous (Poom et al.,
2020), geospatial data about an individual’s location and
proximity to other features on a map can reveal privacy-
sensitive information. Thus, the ethical handling of geo-
graphic data, referred to as GeoEthics within the GIScience
community (Goodchild, 2021), has an important role to
play in general discussions on the ethics of data and AI.
Second, DE involves both large volumes of spatial–tem-
poral data from multiple sources—across different owner-
ship and governance regimes, sectors, scales, and cultures
—and complex interactive models, AI methods, and techni-
ques.2 Instances of DE, like interactive digital twins of the
Earth and its inhabitants, are capturing the interest of policy
makers for their potential to provide tailored models for
policy, monitoring, and simulating possible futures
(Nativi et al., 2021).
Third, the vision and role of DE as a global platform for
collaboration across governments and cultures, by being
multilayered and embedded in different local contexts,
offers a nuanced case study to examine some of the global-
local tensions that are arising in debates about AI ethics and
data governance.
Current policy and academic discussions on AI ethics and
data governance could also offer valuable insights for the
future of DE. Nations across the world such as China, the
USA, India, Canada, and member states of the European
Union have developed AI strategic plans, ethical guidelines,
and recommendations for responsible AI (e.g. European
Commission, 2018; UNESCO, 2021; Wu et al., 2020).
Yet, there is little guidance on how to practically implement
these guidelines in DE applications and how to develop data
governance structures that support these values.
Furthermore, within the data governance field, scholars and
policy makers are problematizing the unequal distribution
of power and investigating how individuals can be empow-
ered in their relation with their data (Micheli et al., 2020;
Sadowski et al., 2021). Citizens have a key role in DE,
both as final users of applications and as co-generators of
data that feed DE (Annoni et al., 2011; Goodchild, 2007).
Issues at stake with citizens’ involvement (or lack thereof)
in DE relate well to such debates on data governance
(Brovelli et al., 2020; Haklay, 2016).
Expanding on the ideas in this introduction, in the
second section we discuss the implications of AI ethics
for DE, in the third section those of data governance, and
in the fourth section we conclude.
AI ethics, DE, and the local dimension
Many guidelines have been released stating principles
and values for AI ethics. Globally, the UNESCO
Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence
(2021) is one of the most prominent, providing a “universal
framework of values”. Recommendations like UNESCO’s
are not legally binding. Nevertheless, public and private
organizations across the world are already voluntarily
holding themselves accountable to various AI ethics princi-
ples and guidelines (Jobin et al., 2019).
Studies have attempted to identify convergences and
divergences in the available ethical guidelines (Jobin
et al., 2019; Vesnic-Alujevic et al., 2020). These compara-
tive analyses reveal two main tendencies. On the one hand,
guidelines converge on a set of ethical principles, including
transparency, justice, non-maleficence, responsibility,
accountability, privacy, safety, and trust. On the other
hand, guidelines lack indications on how to implement
these principles in the research, development, and applica-
tion of AI systems. In other words, they identify the “what”
of AI ethics, but neglect the “how” (Morley et al., 2020).
Furthermore, the very meaning of these principles is
continuously renegotiated and adapted in local contexts.
The diversity of local cultures and settings makes adapting
“umbrella principles” to a local context challenging. Giving
local perspectives power to help frame and balance these
priorities is critical (Carman and Rosman, 2020; Gevaert
et al., 2021). For example, a principle that “individuals
have a right to make decisions for themselves” (Floridi
et al., 2018: 697) is prominent in many Western cultures.
Yet, other cultures across the world may promote the role
of the community in decision making (Chukwuneke et al.,
2014). Similarly, the AI ethics policy of the New South
Wales Government in Australia has included “community
benefit” as one of its five principles (NSW Government,
2020). Local values related to culture, sovereignty, self-
determination, sense of privacy, etc., have to be taken
into account if a more responsible development and appli-
cation of emerging technologies is sought (Carroll et al.,
2019; Shanley et al., 2015).
An example of how such challenges might unfold in
practice in DE is the way AI algorithms can be used to auto-
matically generate maps from satellite and drone imagery
on a global scale. While this requires sharing the imagery
with the experts and teams developing the algorithms, a
Micheli et al.
project using drone imagery to map informal settlements,
might involve local communities in identifying which
objects in the images could cause privacy concerns. In
this way, possible strategies to address residents’ concept
of privacy can be developed (e.g. blur orthoimagery of sen-
sitive objects) and the first step is made toward empowering
citizens and building trust (Gevaert et al., 2018). At the same
time, potential conflicts in values could arise between levels
(e.g. local vs. regional) and even at a local level, where dif-
ferent parties may disagree and power asymmetries come
into play. While local instances of DE allow some custom-
ization of data and deviation from global “standards”, their
practical implementation will be challenging due to such fric-
tions. This illustrates why DE can be a good case study for AI
ethics: it is a global but multilayered framework that “moves”
between global and local.
Inclusive data governance for DE
In datafied societies, substantial asymmetries exist between
those that collect and control data, and other actors with less
negotiating power, such as individuals, communities, local
governments, and small businesses. In the DE field, former
US Vice President Al Gore and others raised awareness
long ago about how the restriction of geospatial data to
the hands of governments and corporations could impede
societal advancement (Goodchild et al., 2012). The notion
of DE envisions citizens as key actors, both as data users
and data producers through crowdsourced and citizen/com-
munity science projects (Brovelli et al., 2020), but citizens’
role in the governance of data is weak (Micheli et al., 2020;
Mulder et al., 2016).
Data access, control, and use by a wide range of actors is
a prerequisite for an inclusive approach to data (Carroll
et al., 2019; Shanley et al., 2015). Proposals for more inclu-
sive data governance are emerging that could inspire the
governance of DE. These proposals advocate for the redis-
tribution of value generated from data across society; the
ability to exert authority (sovereignty) over data by indivi-
duals and organizations; and the inclusion of less powerful
actors, such as marginalized communities, in data govern-
ance so they can have claims on the benefits derived from
data (Micheli et al., 2020; Mulder et al., 2016; Taylor,
2017). Understanding how such approaches are integrated
into the geospatial domain can provide guidance for the
future of DE.
City governments, for instance, are experimenting with
the opportunities offered by geospatial data to tackle
urban challenges and create public value, by providing,
for example, citizen-centric public services and improving
governance. Public value creation through geospatial data
at a local level also takes place when using digital twins
of cities to test policies before adoption. Partnerships
between governments, science, and industry are crucial to
develop collaborations and to share data for the public
3
interest. For example, the National Authority for Remote
Sensing and Space Sciences in Egypt established a
GeoPortal to share geospatial information and to collect
data from the public about private businesses nationwide
(Ibrahim et al., 2021).
The public value of geospatial information emerges even
more during emergencies and natural disasters (Mulder
et al., 2016). For instance, during the COVID-19 crisis,
policy makers relied on data collected by mobile devices
to study the spread of the virus and track recovery (Poom
et al., 2020; Vespe et al., 2021). Citizens themselves con-
tributed through crowdsourcing projects such as the
Italian OpenStreetMap (OSM) community, which produced
mapping with a scale and granularity higher than datasets
collected by public sector administrations at that time
(Minghini et al., 2022).
To be inclusive, however, data initiatives should account
for the perspectives of members of different sociodemo-
graphics and communities and produce benefits also for
the less privileged. For instance, in the geospatial domain
top-down earth observation is often used to collect informa-
tion for urban planning. Yet, the inclusion of bottom-up per-
spectives in the data governance of such initiatives can
improve the capacity to address societal concerns and
needs of communities underrepresented within an exclu-
sively top-down approach. Such a bottom-up approach is
illustrated, for instance, by a project on slum mapping in
Ghana, where scholars produced user-driven slum maps by
carrying out in situ observations and interviews with
experts from local institutions addressing the impact of
maps on slum dwellers (Owusu et al., 2021). Members of
marginalized communities can be represented by boards
and dedicated organizations. For instance, American Indian
tribes rely on indigenous organizations that steward data to
protect their cultural knowledge and way of life (Carroll
et al., 2019). Overall, grounding (geospatial) data govern-
ance in local contexts is part of what makes these initiatives
more inclusive and sustainable (Mulder et al., 2016).
Including local perspectives involves addressing conflicts.
Local responses might be bottom-up data resistance initia-
tives, intended as local activities that resist top-down govern-
ance, such as location spoofing or counter-mapping (Dalton
and Stallmann, 2018; Dalton and Thatcher, 2014).
Furthermore, there can be local groups with conflicting inter-
ests, such as claims to the same territory/resources, but with
different cultural and organizational perspectives toward the
land and its data (Cullen, 2015; Kyem Kwaku, 2004). Local
resilience strategies, dedicated spatial planning initiatives,
and creating a shared social aim could be means to
respond to intra-community conflicts (Haugh, 2021).
Conclusions
In this commentary, we highlight how the tension between
DE’s local embeddedness and global scope makes it a
4 Big Data & Society
compelling case for current debates on data governance and
the ethical development and use of AI. Building on this, we
argue that the implementation of more inclusive data gov-
ernance approaches and ethical AI in the geospatial
domain has a strong local dimension. Good practices high-
lighting community-based approaches should be collected
and critically examined to understand how guidelines and
principles can be applied in local contexts to ensure inclu-
sive innovation. Careful consideration should be given to
understanding how principles and values underlying DE
vary across geographic contexts, and to promote intercul-
tural dialogue to inform future implementation of laws
and guidelines. Nonetheless, conflicts should be expected
to occur, as balancing the values and interests of actors
and communities is challenging at all levels. A crucial chal-
lenge for DE is thus not how to reproduce a standardized
replica of the entire planet, but how to account for the
(many) localized needs, values, and ethics that constitute it,
and to do so in a way that is sensitive to conflicts and
power asymmetries.
This commentary encourages research in DE to engage
with current debates on ethical AI and data governance,
and to collect and analyze cases that implement principles
of ethical AI and more inclusive data governance in the geo-
spatial domain. In turn, as DE provides a case from which
other fields can learn, we encourage establishing a stronger
dialogue with disciplines outside the geospatial field.
Acknowledgments
The content of this commentary is based on the outcome of a
workshop on “Digital Governance and AI Ethics” organized by
the International Society of Digital Earth (ISDE) Working
Group 3 on Digital Earth Governance and Ethics, and on subse-
quent discussions between the co-authors of this piece. More
information can be found here: http://www.digitalearth-isde.org/
list-94-1.html. The Working Group is open to contributions
from a wide range of disciplines and welcomes contributions
and exchanges on the topics presented in this commentary. The
authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and
the editors for their valuable comments that helped to improve
the manuscript.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research and/or authorship of this article: The work of indi-
vidual authors may be (partially) funded by grants. For example,
the work of Caroline Gevaert is (partly) financed by the Dutch
Research Council (NWO) through the Talent Program Veni
2020 project “Bridging the gap between artificial intelligence
and society: Developing responsible and viable solutions for geo-
spatial data” (with project No. 18091).
ORCID iDs
Marina Micheli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7004-6480
Caroline M Gevaert https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3983-2459
Mary Carman https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8163-2100
Rania E Ibrahim https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5116-5866
Alexander Kotsev https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0411-741X
Sven Schade https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5677-5209
Lea A Shanley https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8449-4615
Alessio Tartaro https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0382-3083
Michele Vespe https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2309-7266
Notes
1. AI can be defined as “any machine or algorithm that is capable
of observing its environment, learning and, based on the
knowledge and expertise gained, taking intelligent action or
proposing decisions”. Machine learning is a subfield of AI in
which a behavior is predicted from a number of input examples
(Craglia et al. 2018:23)
2. Different data layers can serve as input to DE, both open and
proprietary, from maps produced within the OSM community
to information collected via remote sensing.
References
Annoni A, Craglia M, Ehlers M, et al. (2011) A European perspec-
tive on digital earth. International Journal of Digital Earth
4(4): 271–284.
Brovelli MA, Ponti M, Schade S, et al. (2020) Citizen science in
support of digital earth. In: Manual of Digital Earth.
Singapore: Springer Singapore, pp. 593–622.
Carman M and Rosman B (2020) Applying a principle of explic-
ability to AI research in Africa: Should we do it? Ethics and
Information Technology 23(2): 107–117.
Carroll SR, Rodriguez-Lonebear D and Martinez A (2019)
Indigenous data governance: Strategies from United States
native nations. Data Science Journal 18(1): 31.
Chukwuneke F, Umeora O, Maduabuchi J, et al. (2014) Global
bioethics and culture in a pluralistic world: How does culture
influence bioethics in Africa? Annals of Medical and Health
Sciences Research 4(5): 672.
Craglia M, Annoni A., Benczur, et al. (2018) Artificial Intelligence
– A European Perspective. Luxembourg: Publications Office
of the European Union.
Cullen A (2015) Making sense of claims across institutional
divides: Critical PGIS and mapping customary land in
Timor-Leste. Australian Geographer 46(4): 473–490.
Dalton CM and Stallmann T (2018) Counter-mapping data
science. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien
62(1): 93–101.
Dalton C and Thatcher J (2014) What does a critical data studies
look like, and why do we care? Seven points for a critical
approach to ‘big data’. Society and Space 29. Available at:
http://societyandspace.com/material/commentaries/craig-dalton-
and-jim-thatcher-what-does-a-critical-data-studies-look-like-and-
why-do-we-care-seven-points-for-a-critical-approach-to-big-data/
(accessed 29 September 2022).
Micheli et al.
European Commission (2018) Communication from the Commission:
Artificial Intelligence for Europe. 237. Luxemburg: European
Commission Publication Office.
Floridi L, Cowls J, Beltrametti M, et al. (2018) AI4People—An
Ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities,
risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines
28(4): 689–707.
Gevaert CM, Carman M, Rosman B, et al. (2021) Fairness and
accountability of AI in disaster risk management: Opportunities
and challenges. Patterns 2(11): 100363.
Gevaert CM, Sliuzas R, Persello C, et al. (2018) Evaluating the soci-
etal impact of using drones to support urban upgrading projects.
ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 7(3): 91.
Goodchild MF (2007) Citizens as voluntary sensors: Spatial data
infrastructure in the world of web 2.0. International Journal
of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research 2: 24–32.
Goodchild MF (2021) Geoethics in the geospatial community.
ArcNews 43: 30–31. https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/
arcnews/geoethics-in-the-geospatial-community
Goodchild MF, Guo H, Annoni A, et al. (2012) Next-generation
digital earth. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 109(28): 11088–11094.
Gore A (1998) The Digital Earth: Understanding our planet in the
21st Century. Speech written for delivery at the opening of the
California Science Center, Los Angeles.
Haklay M (2016) Why is participation inequality important? In:
Capineri C, Haklay M, Huang H, et al. (eds) European
Handbook of Crowdsourced Geographic Information. London,
UK: Ubiquity Press, pp. 35–44.
Haugh HM (2021) The governance of entrepreneurial community
ventures: How do conflicting community interests influence
opportunity exploitation? Journal of Business Venturing
Insights 16: e00265.
Ibrahim RE, Elramly A and Hassan HM (2021) Open systems
science: Digital transformation and developing business
model toward smart farms’ platform. International Journal of
Circuits, Systems and Signal Processing 14: 1054–1073.
ISDE (2012) International Society for Digital Earth website.
Available at: http://www.digitalearth-isde.org/list-90-1.html
(accessed 29 September 2022).
Jobin A, Ienca M and Vayena E (2019) The global landscape of AI
ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence 1(9): 389–399.
Kyem Kwaku PA (2004) Of intractable conflicts and participatory
GIS applications: The search for consensus amidst competing
claims and institutional demands. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers 94(1): 37–57.
Micheli M, Ponti M, Craglia M, et al. (2020) Emerging models of
data governance in the age of datafication. Big Data & Society
7(2): 205395172094808.
5
Minghini M, Sarretta A and Napolitano M (2022) Openstreetmap
contribution to local data ecosystems in COVID-19 times:
Experiences and reflections from the Italian case. Data 7(4): 39.
Morley J, Floridi L, Kinsey L, et al. (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.
Mulder F, Ferguson J, Groenewegen P, et al. (2016) Questioning
big data: Crowdsourcing crisis data towards an inclusive
humanitarian response. Big Data & Society 3(2): 1–13.
Nativi S, Mazzetti P and Craglia M (2021) Digital ecosystems for
developing digital twins of the earth: The destination earth
case. Remote Sensing 13(11): 2119.
NSW Government (2020) Artificial Intelligence (AI) ethics policy:
Mandatory ethical principles for the use of AI. Available at:
https://www.digital.nsw.gov.au/policy/artificial-intelligence/
artificial-intelligence-ai-ethics-policy/mandatory-ethical (accessed
25 April 2022).
Owusu M, Kuffer M, Belgiu M, et al. (2021) Towards user-driven
earth observation-based slum mapping. Computers, Environment
and Urban Systems 89: 101681.
Poom A, Järv O, Zook M, et al. (2020) COVID-19 is spatial:
Ensuring that mobile big data is used for social good. Big
Data & Society 7(2): 205395172095208.
Sadowski J, Viljoen S and Whittaker M (2021) Everyone should
decide how their digital data are used — not just tech compan-
ies. Nature 595(7866): 169–171.
Shanley LA, Tano M, Gabrynowicz JI, et al. (2015) Spatial Data
Sovereignty and Privacy in Indian Country. University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Available at: https://zenodo.org/record/
4085173#.X4XBaC2ZPxo (accessed 29 September 2022).
Taylor L (2017) What is data justice? The case for connecting
digital rights and freedoms globally. Big Data & Society
4(2): 1–14.
UNESCO (2021) Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial
Intelligence. France: UNESCO. Available at: https://unesdoc.
unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380455 (accessed 3 November
2022).
Vesnic-Alujevic L, Nascimento S and Pólvora A (2020) Societal
and ethical impacts of artificial intelligence: Critical notes on
European policy frameworks. Telecommunications Policy
44(6): 101961.
Vespe M, Iacus SM, Santamaria C, et al. (2021) On the use of data
from multiple mobile network operators in Europe to fight
COVID-19. Data & Policy 3(e8): 1–10. doi: 10.1017/dap.
2021.9
Wu W, Huang T and Gong K (2020) Ethical principles and govern-
ance technology development of AI in China. Engineering 6(3):
302–309.