3.1. Descriptive Analysis of the Selected Sample3.1.1. Subsubsection
The study was conducted using two internationally recognized databases: Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. Searches on both platforms were carried out in February 2025.
The refinement of results proceeded in three successive stages to ensure the thematic relevance of the studies to the research objectives (
Table 1).
The initial stage of the search returned a substantial volume of documents in both databases analyzed. In Scopus, 25,552 records were identified, while Web of Science yielded 12,648 documents. After applying an additional set of descriptors to improve thematic relevance, the results were significantly reduced to 866 documents in Scopus and 478 in WoS. This stage underscored the importance of rigorous screening to ensure the pertinence of the studies selected. The final refinement process included restrictions by publication year (2020 to 2024), document type (articles and review articles), publication stage (final), language (English), and access type (all open access), resulting in the final selection of 226 documents in Scopus and 225 in WoS to compose the corpus for the bibliometric analysis. This methodological rigor helps ensure that the analyzed data align with the research objectives and reflect the current state of scientific production on Artificial Intelligence and Sustainable Development.
The delimitation of the publication period 2020 to 2024 stems from the scarcity of earlier studies. Using the search strings described in
Table 1, it is observed that up to 2019 only 10 articles were retrieved in Scopus and just 2 in WoS. Among the works that deal directly with the theme of this research, the oldest record in Scopus is Couto et al. [
25], which investigates the prediction of water quality in reservoirs using Artificial Intelligence methods, comparing Artificial Neural Networks and Decision Trees in the Odivelas reservoir in Portugal, with data collected between 2001 and 2010. In WoS, the study by Sonetti et al. [
26] stands out as the oldest record; it examines how Information and Communication Technologies—including Natural Language Processing, Computer Vision, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning—can support the shift from “sustainability” to “regenerative sustainability” in the built environment, with a focus on human-centered design, based on a literature review of smart buildings and sentient buildings. Both studies show a low number of citations, with 10 citations for [
25] and 20 for [
26].
The initial set of documents retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science totaled 451 records. The next step consisted of removing duplicates, a process carried out with the aid of the Bibliometrix library in the RStudio environment. A total of 186 duplicate records were identified and unified into a single comma-separated values (CSV) file. This procedure enabled the standardization of metadata extracted from both databases, ensuring that all fields were organized according to the same technical parameters. This harmonization was essential to enable the use of Biblioshiny in the development of subsequent bibliometric analyses.
Figure 1 highlights the significant growth of scientific production on the theme of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence at the interface with Sustainable Development in the period 2020 to 2024.
The data in
Figure 1 show a pattern of continuous, accelerated growth, especially from 2022 onward. At the beginning of the series, volumes were still modest, with 13 publications in 2020 and 11 in 2021. A clear inflection point appears in 2022, when the annual total jumped to 38 articles. Growth remained steady in 2023, with 58 publications, and reached its peak in 2024, with 145 documents. In percentage terms, these results represent an increase of over 1,000% in five years, signaling the maturation of the research field, rising academic interest, and the consolidation of the topic’s scientific relevance on the international stage.
This marked expansion can be attributed, among other factors, to growing scholarly mobilization around the SDGs, the expansion of computational infrastructure for AI research, and the emergence of ethical and social debates concerning the responsible use of these technologies. These elements reinforce the pertinence of investigating the contribution of Artificial Intelligence from a human-centered perspective, particularly in addressing contemporary global challenges.
Table 2 presents a consolidated view of the document set that comprises the corpus analyzed in this study, obtained through the application of thematic and temporal filters in the Scopus and Web of Science databases.
The total of 265 documents comprises 215 original research articles and 50 review articles, published across 165 different journals, which demonstrates the topic’s interdisciplinary breadth and its dissemination across diverse areas of knowledge.
The annual growth rate of publications was approximately 83 percent, reinforcing the data presented in
Table 2 and evidencing a rapid dynamic of scientific production. The selected documents received an average of 15 citations per publication, totaling more than 3,900 accumulated citations, which denotes recognition and significant scientific impact. In addition, the articles collectively reference 19,475 other works, evidencing the field’s bibliographic density and its degree of articulation with other emerging themes.
3.2. Identification of Institutions, Authors, and Scientific Journals
The analyzed documents were produced by 1,204 distinct authors, with a notably high rate of scientific collaboration, as only 19 articles were single-authored. It is also noteworthy that approximately 36 percent of the publications resulted from international collaborations involving researchers from different countries, contributing to global knowledge exchange and the strengthening of transnational scientific networks.
Figure 2 presents an analysis of scientific productivity by country, considering the institutional affiliation of the corresponding author of each publication. The chart in
Figure 2 distinguishes two types of collaboration: Single Country Publications (SCP), produced entirely by authors from a single country, and Multiple Country Publications (MCP), which involve international cooperation among authors of different nationalities. This distinction makes it possible to observe not only the volume of publications by country but also the degree of internationalization of scientific production in the field of Artificial Intelligence applied to Sustainable Development.
Figure 2 shows that, during the period analyzed, the mapped documents were produced by authors affiliated with institutions in 47 countries, underscoring the global nature of research on Artificial Intelligence and Sustainable Development. The five countries with the largest number of publications were: Italy, with 22 publications (15 SCP and 7 MCP); China, with 18 (12 SCP and 6 MCP); the United States, also with 18 (14 SCP and 4 MCP); Germany, with 17 (13 SCP and 4 MCP); and Australia, with 15 publications, the only country in the group with a predominance of international collaboration (7 SCP and 8 MCP).
The high proportion of MCP in countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom, and Norway suggests strong integration into international scientific networks. By contrast, the predominance of SCP in countries such as China and the United States may indicate a high capacity for domestic production but also potential barriers to transnational collaboration. Notably, Brazil is absent from the countries with significant output in the analyzed corpus, which may indicate a gap in national scientific insertion on this specific topic or a dispersion of Brazilian authors within multinational networks where they do not appear as corresponding authors.
Beyond providing a view of the geographic distribution of output,
Figure 2 also enables inferences about the collaborative profile of the scientific community. Countries with higher proportions of MCP tend to participate in consortia, bilateral partnerships, or international thematic networks, which contributes to the diversification of perspectives and to increased publication impact.
Figure 3 presents the most relevant authors, considering the number of publications identified in the study corpus. The analysis, conducted via Biblioshiny, makes it possible to visualize the researchers with the greatest thematic recurrence. This identification is important for mapping networks of influence, potential centers of excellence, and future references for theoretical, methodological, and applied deepening.
Figure 3 shows that the author Andreas Holzinger leads scientific output, with six publications. He is followed by Javed Mallick and Sergey Zhironkin, with four articles each, and Karl Stampfer, with three. There is also a group of twenty-five authors with two publications each, indicating consistency in their contributions.
Although the numbers may seem modest, the fact that a few authors concentrate multiple publications in an emerging field may indicate thematic specialization and the consolidation of research lines, while also reinforcing the importance of further studies on this topic. It is also worth noting the geographic and institutional diversity of the authors, which may suggest the formation of research hubs distributed globally, reinforcing the interdisciplinary and international nature of the discussion on AI and Sustainable Development.
Andreas Holzinger’s articles converge on the interface between XAI, sustainability, and applications in forestry, agriculture, and health. In “AI for life: Trends in artificial intelligence for biotechnology” [
27], AI is positioned as cross-cutting infrastructure for the life sciences and is connected to multiple Sustainable Development Goals, highlighting research gaps in biomedical data mining, ontologies (formal models that standardize concepts and relations), natural language processing, reasoning under uncertainty, and XAI as a methodological agenda for sustainable solutions. In “Explainable Artificial Intelligence to Support Work Safety in Forestry: Insights from Two Large Datasets, Open Challenges, and Future Work” [
28], two large datasets of occupational accidents in forestry are analyzed and decision trees, random forests, and neural networks are compared, incorporating interpretability techniques to support causal inference and accident prevention within the scope of SDG 3 (health and well-being). In “Exploring AI for applications of drones in forest ecology and management” [
29], the potential of AI combined with drones for forest monitoring and management is discussed. In “From Industry 5.0 to Forestry 5.0: Bridging the gap with Human-Centered” [
30], a conceptual framework is proposed that transposes Industry 5.0 principles to the forestry sector with Human-Centered AI, emphasizing predictive analytics, automation, and precision management. In “Human-Centered AI in Smart Farming: Toward Agriculture 5.0” [
31], the focus is on Agriculture 5.0, advocating for the human in the loop in light of Moravec’s paradox (tasks that are easy for humans, such as perception and motor coordination, are difficult for machines, whereas tasks that are hard for humans, such as formal calculation, tend to be easier for computers) and European regulatory requirements, arguing that productivity gains must be compatible with human oversight, ethics, and the resilience of the agri-food system. In “The Cost of Understanding—XAI Algorithms towards Sustainable ML in the View of Computational Cost” [
32], the computational cost associated with explainability in modeling is assessed, scenarios of classification, regression, and object detection are compared in health, building energy, and computer vision, and guidelines are offered for measuring energy consumption and optimizing with emissions metrics. Taken together, these works sustain a research agenda that links XAI, sustainability, and human-centered design as requirements for the responsible adoption of AI in sectors with high operational risk and environmental impact.
Javed Mallick’s articles converge on XAI applications to territorial planning and environmental risk management problems, with an emphasis on integrating Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), and machine learning. In “A decision-making framework for landfill site selection in Saudi Arabia using explainable artificial intelligence and multi-criteria analysis” [
33], the study combines the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) with fuzzy logic, GIS, and XAI to construct an index of potential landfill areas in a mountainous, rapidly urbanizing context, explaining the contribution of variables such as slope, altitude, land use and land cover, drainage density, and precipitation to support municipal decisions. In “Optimizing Residential Construction Site Selection in Mountainous Regions Using Geospatial Data and eXplainable AI” [
34], a suitability model is proposed for housing developments, articulating fuzzy AHP with a Deep Neural Network (DNN) and explainability layers to interpret determining variables and prioritize safe, environmentally appropriate zones. In “Exploring forest fire susceptibility and management strategies in Western Himalaya: Integrating ensemble machine learning and explainable AI for accurate prediction and comprehensive analysis” [
35], the study advances to forest fire susceptibility using high-performance ensembles and both local and global interpretations to guide management strategies. In “Interpretation of Bayesian-optimized deep learning models for enhancing soil erosion susceptibility prediction and management: a case study of Eastern India” [
36], Bayesian optimization of deep networks and XAI techniques are applied to explain determinants of erosion risk and support soil conservation interventions. Collectively, the works support two central points: the predictive effectiveness of combining classical multi-criteria decision-support methods, machine learning, and explainability in complex geospatial scenarios; and the practical utility of global and local explanations for decisions in sustainable urban development, waste management, wildfire prevention, and soil conservation, aligning technical performance with transparency and accountability in territorial policy design.
The articles by Sergey Zhironkin in the corpus articulate energy and industrial transitions from the perspective of Industry 5.0, Energy 5.0, and Mining 5.0, focusing on human-centered innovation in fossil value chains, alignment with the SDGs, and emissions reduction. In “Fossil Fuel Prospects in the Energy of the Future (Energy 5.0): A Review” [
37], the authors discuss how a non-disruptive transition could reposition fossil fuels through digitization, collaborative AI, digital twins, and the Industrial Internet of Everything (IIoE), adding CO₂ capture and utilization technologies and the use of hydrogen as an energy vector to reconcile energy security with climate goals. In “Review of the Transition to Energy 5.0 in the Context of Non-Renewable Energy Sustainable Development” [
38], Energy 5.0 technological platforms and the human-centered vector of Industry 5.0 are mapped, indicating research fronts for technological diffusion in the hydrocarbons sector. In “Review of the Transition from Mining 4.0 to 5.0 in Fossil Energy Sources Production” [
39], the advance from Mining 4.0 to Mining 5.0 is characterized with emphasis on cyber-physical systems, smart sensors, big data, IoT, and digital twins, and the need to harmonize extraction innovation with the expansion of renewables is discussed. In “Review of Transition from Mining 4.0 to Mining 5.0 Innovative Technologies” [
40], emerging technologies are detailed, such as cobots (collaborative robots that work alongside humans in production and service environments), cloud mining (use of cloud computing for the analysis and management of mining operations), bioextraction (use of microorganisms and bioprocesses to recover metals and minerals), post-mining practices (closure and environmental and socioeconomic rehabilitation after extraction), and ESG investment, arguing that a human-centered orientation and digital–biotechnological integration are prerequisites for reshaping the role of the mining sector in a low-carbon economy. Taken together, these studies aim to delineate barriers and modernization pathways for fossil and extractive chains, reconciling productivity, occupational safety, climate goals, and the SDGs within the horizon of Industry, Energy, and Mining 5.0.
Karl Stampfer’s articles in the corpus lie at the interface of forestry operations, XAI, and a human-centered agenda for sector modernization. In “Explainable Artificial Intelligence to Support Work Safety in Forestry: Insights from Two Large Datasets, Open Challenges, and Future Work” [
28], coauthored with Andreas Holzinger, two large real-world datasets of occupational accidents in Austria are analyzed to compare decision trees, random forests, and fully connected neural networks, incorporating interpretation layers and an emphasis on causal inference with the goal of accident prevention and alignment with SDG 3. In “Exploring artificial intelligence for applications of drones in forest ecology and management” [
29], also coauthored with Andreas Holzinger, the potential of AI combined with drones for forest monitoring and management is discussed, highlighting gains in detection, mapping, and decision support. In “From Industry 5.0 to Forestry 5.0: Bridging the gap with Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence” [
30], likewise coauthored with Andreas Holzinger, the transition from Industry 5.0 to Forestry 5.0 is synthesized, proposing a framework that articulates predictive analytics, automation, and precision management with human oversight, occupational safety, and sustainability. Stampfer’s contribution reinforces the responsible adoption of AI in environments with high operational risk, focusing on safety, efficiency, and sustainable forest management, and it remains thematically consistent with the coauthored works with Andreas Holzinger.
Figure 4 presents the evolution of publication volume for the 20 most productive authors in the corpus and the citations received per year for their works. Each line corresponds to an author; the points mark years in which publications occurred. Bubble size represents the number of articles published in the period for a given author (N. Articles), while color intensity indicates the total citations per year (TC per Year) associated with their contributions. This visualization allows productivity and normalized impact over time to be observed simultaneously.
The distribution shows a densification of output from 2022 onward, peaking in 2024, indicating the recency and acceleration of the field within the analyzed period. Heterogeneity between productivity and impact is observed: some authors combine a larger number of articles and high TC per year, forming a core of reference; others, with fewer publications, display relatively high TC per year, suggesting works with high marginal effect. Taken together,
Figure 4 reinforces that the theme has recently been consolidating, with diverse author trajectories and an emerging nucleus of influence.
When
Figure 3 is compared with
Figure 4, a difference appears in the name of the author occupying the last position on the y-axis, with only one publication. In
Figure 3, the name is AHMED, MOHAMMED SALIH, whereas in
Figure 4 the name in that position is ABBA, SANI I. To clarify this difference, the data contained in the Bibliometrix-based spreadsheet (XLSX) were examined, and the conclusion is that Biblioshiny reads the base spreadsheet differently for constructing each figure. In articles sourced from Scopus, the author names in column AF (full author names) include an ID number in parentheses immediately after the names, while in the WoS data this does not occur. Based on this analysis, it is plausible that, for
Figure 3, Biblioshiny considers the Scopus entry AHMED, MOHAMMED SALIH (57209734458) as the first author in alphabetical order with a single publication, whereas for
Figure 4 the software considers ABBA, SANI I.
Table 3 presents the documents with the greatest citation impact in the study corpus; the aim is to characterize citations by author, year of publication, and journal, as well as to compare absolute citation volume (TC) with the intensity of annual citations (TC per Year), allowing the identification of reference works that structure the debate on HCAI applied to Sustainable Development.
The articles in
Table 3 total 1,629 citations. The range is substantial—87 to 393 citations—indicating asymmetry in publication impact. The five most-cited articles account for 68.7% of all citations in the sample. In absolute terms, the leading items are Schwendicke et al. [
41] with 393 citations and 65.5 per year; Adel et al. [
42] with 221 citations and 55.25 per year; Yang et al. [
43] with 208 citations and 41.6 per year; Garibay et al. [
44] with 170 citations and 56.67 per year; and Holzinger et al. [
27] with 128 citations and 42.67 per year.
Schwendicke et al. [
41] have presented a narrative review of Artificial Intelligence in dentistry, synthesizing applications in image-based diagnosis and treatment planning, and discussing limitations, the need for clinical validation, and ethical implications. Adel et al. [
42] develop a conceptual review of Industry 5.0 with a human-centered emphasis, outlining solutions, challenges, and a research agenda with implications for resilience and sustainability. Yang et al. [
43] propose a human-centered AI framework for education, showing how observable data can support inference of latent learning states and discussing design requirements and responsible governance. Garibay et al. [
44], in the Human–Computer Interaction field, discuss design requirements and implications of adopting AI-based systems from a user-experience perspective. Holzinger et al. [
27] map AI trends for biotechnology, emphasizing data challenges, integration with the SDGs, and opportunities for future research.
Figure 5 presents the most relevant sources in the corpus, ordered by the number of documents published during the analyzed period. A clear lead is observed for Sustainability, with 29 articles in the set, followed by IEEE Access with 16 and Applied Sciences-Basel with 10. The remaining output is distributed across a sequence of journals with lower individual publication volumes.
The predominance of Sustainability is marked and consistent with the study’s focus on Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence applied to Sustainable Development. Relative to the corpus of 265 articles, Sustainability accounts for approximately 10.9% of the total, whereas IEEE Access comprises about 6.0% and Applied Sciences-Basel about 3.8%. In absolute difference, Sustainability publishes 13 more articles than IEEE Access and 19 more than Applied Sciences-Basel; in ratio terms, it corresponds to roughly 1.81 times the volume of IEEE Access and 2.9 times that of Applied Sciences-Basel. This gradient indicates an editorial venue particularly receptive to intersections between AI and sustainability, alongside engineering- and applied-science outlets that serve as complementary channels. The result suggests that a substantive portion of the debate consolidates in journals with an interdisciplinary scope, with meaningful diffusion toward socio-environmental applications, while maintaining a consistent technical base in engineering and computing venues.
Figure 6 presents the cumulative output by journal between 2020 and 2024. Each line corresponds to a journal, and the value on the vertical axis indicates the cumulative number of articles from that journal in the corpus over time. The chart in
Figure 7 makes it possible to observe not only the final total by journal but especially the growth rate (slope of the curve), highlighting distinct editorial trajectories.
Three patterns are evident. First, Sustainability exhibits a continuous and accelerated trajectory, culminating in 29 publications in 2024; the curve is steepest in 2023–2024, confirming its role as the field’s editorial reference in the period. Second, IEEE Access shows a late takeoff but a marked jump in 2024, ending the period with 16 articles, which represents recent growth and suggests opportunities for applied, engineering-oriented AI studies. Third, Applied Sciences-Basel displays stable, near-linear growth, reaching 10 publications in 2024; this behavior indicates a consistent channel for applied research that integrates AI methods with technological problems. The remaining journals maintain incremental dynamics and gentler slopes, reinforcing a concentration pattern in which a few journals account for most of the output. Together with the source ranking, the time series confirms the substantive lead of Sustainability over the other journals and helps explain the recent diffusion of the topic in the analyzed editorial ecosystem.
Figure 7 presents themes grouped by bibliographic coupling, that is, by the proximity among items that share references within the corpus. The horizontal axis expresses the centrality of the theme in the network, indicating the extent to which it connects to other groups through common references. The vertical axis represents impact, summarizing citation performance of the set associated with each theme. Bubble size reflects the number of documents linked to the respective label, and the “conf xx%” index indicates the confidence of the clustering algorithm. This visualization makes it possible to identify consolidated nuclei, high-impact specializations, and fronts that are still weakly connected, complementing the thematic map by focusing on reference relationships among the works.
A core cluster is observed in the high-centrality, high-impact quadrant, composed of artificial intelligence, sustainability, explainable ai, and deep learning, marked by larger bubbles and high confidence levels. This block indicates that the recent literature combines AI’s technical capability with applications linked to Sustainable Development, supported by a widely shared repertoire of references. To the upper right, industry 5.0 and collaborative robotics also display high impact and good centrality, suggesting an industrial and organizational trajectory that is highly cited and well integrated into the main debate. Further to the left, ai ethics and digital health present high impact with moderate centrality, denoting specialized and influential lines that interact with the core but maintain relatively distinct bibliographies. Along the lower band appear labels such as “explainable artificial intelligence” (with variants), “shapley additive explanations”, “ai for social good” and “agent-based modelling” with lower centrality and impact, which may reflect emerging stages or terminological fragmentation.
Figure 8 presents the thematic map generated in Biblioshiny from author keywords, in which the horizontal axis represents centrality (the degree of connection of each theme with the others) and the vertical axis represents density (the degree of internal development of the theme). Processing used the following parameters: Avoid label overlap = on; Number of Words = 250; Min Cluster Frequency = 5 (per thousand documents); Number of Labels = 5; Label size = 0.3; Community Repulsion = 0; and the Walktrap clustering algorithm. To reduce terminological noise, a Biblioshiny Thesaurus was applied to unify spelling variants and acronyms—for example, using “explainable artificial intelligence” in place of “explainable AI” and “XAI”, “SHAP” in place of “shapley additive explanations” and normalizing “Industry 4.0/5.0.” This treatment ensures that synonyms do not fragment clusters and improves the interpretability of the map.
Reading of the map reveals two motor poles (high centrality and high density) on the right side of the chart: (i) a methodological block around “explainable artificial intelligence” “machine learning” “deep learning” “SHAP” and “internet of things”; and (ii) a technical–applied block with “artificial intelligence”, “sustainability”, “human-centered AI” and “industry 4.0/5.0” indicating articulation among analytical capacity, governance, and applications in industrial transition and sustainability. In the zone of basic themes (high centrality, lower density) appear “digital twin”, “consciousness”, “aging” and “urban planning” functioning as connectors of the field’s general vocabulary. The emerging/declining quadrant (low centrality and low density) concentrates “environmental sustainability”, “sustainable urban development”, “life cycle assessment”, “trust” and “hybrid intelligence.” These findings suggest topics in early consolidation or specializations that are still weakly integrated with the core. Overall, the map supports a narrative of a field structured by three interdependent layers: technical performance (Machine Learning and Deep Learning); explainability and human-centeredness (XAI and HCAI); and socio-environmental applications, whose evolution follows from the integration of these dimensions.
Figure 9 presents the keyword co-occurrence map generated in VOSviewer from bibliographic files exported from Web of Science (.txt format) and Scopus (.csv format), combined in a single run. The analysis type was Co-occurrence, using Author keywords and Full counting; a minimum occurrence of 3 was defined, and VOSviewer selected 46 keywords organized into seven clusters. To mitigate terminological noise, a .csv Thesaurus file was applied to unify acronyms, normalize orthographic variants, and singular/plural forms (e.g., AI replacing artificial intelligence; human-centered AI replacing human centred AI; IoT replacing internet of things; SHAP replacing shapley additive explanations). This preprocessing ensures that synonyms do not disperse across distinct nodes and improves structural interpretability.
Figure 9 reveals an architecture organized into interdependent poles, focusing on the most prominent nodes: “artificial intelligence,” “explainable AI,” “machine learning,” “sustainability,” “human-centered AI,” “sustainable development goals,” and “industry 5.0.” A coherent design emerges across technical capability, governance, human-centeredness, and socio-environmental purpose. The keyword “artificial intelligence” acts as the map’s general hub, connecting intensely to “sustainability,” “industry 4.0/5.0,” “human-centered AI,” and application terms such as “smart cities” and “urban planning,” indicating that the discourse on AI in the corpus is predominantly oriented toward Sustainable Development problems and organizational transformation. “Explainable AI,” together with “machine learning” and “deep learning,” forms the methodological core; links to “interpretability,” “LIME,” and “SHAP” suggest the effective adoption of explainability techniques as a requirement for responsible applications. “Machine learning” functions as the analytical backbone, radiating into domains such as “digital twins,” “energy modeling,” and “agriculture/smart agriculture,” which reinforces its cross-cutting role as methodological infrastructure. “Sustainability” appears as a transversal application node, anchoring connections with “renewable energy,” “climate change,” “resilience,” and responsibility-oriented initiatives such as “AI for social good” and “trustworthy AI,” projecting AI toward environmental and social issues. “Human-centered AI” brings the technical layer closer to ethical and design dimensions, such as “AI ethics,” “human-centered design,” and “human-robot interaction,” signaling concern with usability, accountability, and impacts on people and organizations.
The term “sustainable development goals” functions as a normative and impact-measurement marker, linking to “sustainable AI,” “sustainable development,” and sectoral axes such as “smart cities” and “renewable energy,” which evidence alignment with public policies and global metrics. Finally, “industry 5.0” organizes the techno-organizational strand of the map, articulating “industry 4.0,” “cyber-physical systems,” “cloud computing,” “mining 5.0,” and “digital transformation,” a pathway that connects automation and human-machine collaboration to sustainability objectives and corporate resilience. The data in Figure 15 suggest the consolidation of analytical effectiveness and explainability mechanisms toward human-centeredness and applications oriented to Sustainable Development, lending thematic coherence to this research and reinforcing the topic’s importance and emergence.
What follows are the seven clusters identified by VOSviewer, named according to their predominant themes and accompanied by their respective sets of keywords:
Cluster 1: Governance and AI-driven digital transformation: ai ethics; artificial intelligence; collaboration; digital health; digital transformation; ethics; human-centered; human-centered AI; industry 4.0; industry 5.0; systematic literature review.
Cluster 2: Explainability and climate–energy modeling: climate change; decision-making; deep learning; energy modeling; interpretability; LIME; renewable energy; SHAP.
Cluster 3: XAI/ML with digital twins and agriculture: bibliometric analysis; digital twins; explainable AI; long short-term memory; machine learning; smart agriculture; sustainable agriculture.
Cluster 4: Smart cities, IoT, and urban planning: covid-19; human-centered design; internet of things; smart cities; technology; urban planning; virtual reality.
Cluster 5: Sustainability, resilience, and the normative agenda: AI for social good; modeling; resilience; sustainability; sustainable AI; sustainable development; trustworthy AI.
Cluster 6: Infrastructure and industrial systems (Industry 5.0): cloud computing; cyber-physical systems; mining 5.0.
Cluster 7: Agriculture, ML methods, and Society 5.0: agriculture; random forests; society 5.0.
The cluster analysis enabled the identification of the structure and thematic fronts that constitute the field of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence at its interface with Sustainable Development. These groupings reveal the coexistence of consolidated cores focused on explainability, sustainability, and Industry 5.0, alongside emerging strands still taking shape, such as algorithmic ethics, digital agriculture, and hybrid intelligence models. Building on these results, the next section deepens the discussion of the practical and theoretical implications of these findings, highlighting concrete examples of AI applications in socio-environmental contexts and the challenges that remain for consolidating a research agenda oriented toward the Sustainable Development Goals.