A systematic map of methods for assessing societal benefits of Earth science information

C Casey C. O’Hara (National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis) M Mabel Baez-Schon (Global Science, World Wildlife Fund) R Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer (Global Science, World Wide Fund for Nature) S Samantha H. Cheng (Global Science, World Wildlife Fund) A Alejandra Echeverri (Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management. University of California) G Gillian L. Galford (Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont) R Rachelle K. Gould (Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont) C Cristina L. Mancilla (Global Science, World Wildlife Fund) M Maura C. Muldoon (Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont) G Gerald G. Singh (School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria) P Priscilla Baltezar (Space Enabled Research Group) Y Yusuke Kuwayama (School of Public Policy, University of Maryland) S Stephen Polasky (Department of Applied Economics) A Amanda D. Rodewald (Cornell Lab of Ornithology and Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, Cornell University) R Richard P. Sharp (Global Science, World Wildlife Fund) E Elizabeth J. Tennant (Charles H. Dyson School, Cornell University) J Jiaying Zhao (Department of Psychology, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia) B Benjamin S. Halpern (National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California Santa Barbara)

Abstract

Remotely sensed Earth science information (ESI) has become increasingly central to addressing global challenges, yet its societal value, i.e., the difference ESI makes in real-world decisions and outcomes, is rarely quantified. In this study, we systematically map peer-reviewed literature that explicitly assesses the societal value of ESI across instrumental, intrinsic, and relational value types, and the diversity of approaches used to assess those values. Drawing from 13,823 publications across Scopus, Web of Science, and a curated library of ESI valuation studies, we identify 171 studies that applied ESI in a decision context and used a valuation method to compare outcomes with and without ESI. The majority of these studies employed decision analysis methods (e.g., Value of Information, Cost–Benefit Analysis), focusing primarily on quantitative instrumental values (e.g., profit, crop yield, lives saved), particularly in agricultural contexts. A smaller set of studies applied preference elicitation methods (e.g., stated preference, surveys, interviews, focus groups) to capture qualitative benefits and relational values including quality of life improvements, empowerment, and procedural justice. Many excluded studies demonstrated scientific value of ESI but did not explicitly translate that into societal value, revealing the need for a more systematic approach to ESI valuation. By promoting a more inclusive, interdisciplinary, and flexible portfolio of valuation methods, we aim to expand our understanding of the societal benefits of ESI to help guide investment in future missions, enhance public support, and ensure that science and policy goals are well aligned.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 123, Issue 6
Published February 10, 2026
ISSN 0027-8424
Publisher National Academy of Sciences

Authors (18)

C

Casey C. O’Hara

National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis

M

Mabel Baez-Schon

Global Science, World Wildlife Fund

R

Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer

Global Science, World Wide Fund for Nature

S

Samantha H. Cheng

Global Science, World Wildlife Fund

A

Alejandra Echeverri

Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management. University of California

G

Gillian L. Galford

Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont

R

Rachelle K. Gould

Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont

C

Cristina L. Mancilla

Global Science, World Wildlife Fund

M

Maura C. Muldoon

Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont

G

Gerald G. Singh

School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria

P

Priscilla Baltezar

Space Enabled Research Group

Y

Yusuke Kuwayama

School of Public Policy, University of Maryland

S

Stephen Polasky

Department of Applied Economics

A

Amanda D. Rodewald

Cornell Lab of Ornithology and Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, Cornell University

R

Richard P. Sharp

Global Science, World Wildlife Fund

E

Elizabeth J. Tennant

Charles H. Dyson School, Cornell University

J

Jiaying Zhao

Department of Psychology, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia

B

Benjamin S. Halpern

National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California Santa Barbara