Alyileili, M and Opoku, A (2025) Artificial intelligence ethics in municipal and construction sectors: A literature review. Construction Economics and Building, 25(3-4), pp. 210-230. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly used to improve the efficiency of public services such as building permit approvals, zoning management, and infrastructure inspections. However, this rapid integration has raised ethical concerns related to algorithmic bias, transparency, accountability, and data privacy. For example, automated zoning systems may inadvertently prioritize certain areas owing to biased data inputs. This paper presents a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis focused on ethical AI frameworks in municipal and construction-related services, particularly focusing on the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where smart city initiatives are rapidly advancing. The review followed preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and drew on 102 peer-reviewed articles from Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and EBSCOhost using keywords such as "AI ethics", "smart cities", and "public services". The analysis highlights recurring ethical gaps in existing global frameworks, including limited adaptability to local cultural and regulatory environments. Drawing from best practices in the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Artificial Intelligence Principles, and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Artificial Intelligence Ethics Guidelines, this study proposed a culturally sensitive governance framework tailored to the UAE context. The framework offers guidance for implementing ethical audits, transparency standards, and citizen feedback mechanisms. The findings provide actionable insights for policymakers—such as the development of regulatory sandboxes—and industry stakeholders deploying AI in construction-related municipal services. This study supported the development of responsible AI practices that align with both global ethical standards and local governance needs, ultimately contributing to more trustworthy smart city services.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | AI ethics; AI governance; construction; municipal services |
| Index terms: | artificial intelligence, efficiency, accountability, bias, meta-analysis, ethics, inspection, integration, adaptability, construction sector, zoning, European Union, public services, United Arab Emirates, governance, transparency, bibliometric analysis, smart city, literature review, best practice, approval, privacy, systematic literature review, drawing, engineer, audit |
| Subjects: | physical geography and landforms, urban planning, probability and distributions, research evaluation and metrics, performance management, urban sustainability, organizational analysis, industry analysis, user focus, artificial intelligence, contractual role, administrative law, profession, liability law, Geography, technical documentation, professional development, ethical practice, business, data analysis and analytics, professional ethics, performance measurement, quality assurance |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Urban Studies, Information Management, Governance, Digital Applications, Quality Management, Contract Administration, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Legal Issues, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here