A systematic map of methods for assessing societal benefits of Earth science information
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
Journal Info
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences
Authors (18)
Casey C. O’Hara
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
Mabel Baez-Schon
Global Science, World Wildlife Fund
Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer
Global Science, World Wide Fund for Nature
Samantha H. Cheng
Global Science, World Wildlife Fund
Alejandra Echeverri
Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management. University of California
Gillian L. Galford
Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont
Rachelle K. Gould
Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont
Cristina L. Mancilla
Global Science, World Wildlife Fund
Maura C. Muldoon
Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont
Gerald G. Singh
School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria
Priscilla Baltezar
Space Enabled Research Group
Yusuke Kuwayama
School of Public Policy, University of Maryland
Stephen Polasky
Department of Applied Economics
Amanda D. Rodewald
Cornell Lab of Ornithology and Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, Cornell University
Richard P. Sharp
Global Science, World Wildlife Fund
Elizabeth J. Tennant
Charles H. Dyson School, Cornell University
Jiaying Zhao
Department of Psychology, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia
Benjamin S. Halpern
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California Santa Barbara