Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41650232›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026

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

Casey C O'Hara, Mabel Baez-Schon, Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer, Samantha H Cheng, Alejandra Echeverri, Gillian L Galford, Rachelle K Gould, Cristina L Mancilla, Maura C Muldoon, Gerald G Singh and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. A systematic map of methods for assessing societal benefits of Earth science information.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Casey C O'HaraNational Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara CA 93101.ORCID 0000-0003-2968-7005
Mabel Baez-SchonGlobal Science, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC 10024.ORCID 0000-0001-6946-9833
Rebecca Chaplin-KramerGlobal Science, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC 10024.
Samantha H ChengGlobal Science, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC 10024.
Alejandra EcheverriDepartment of Environmental Science, Policy and Management. University of California, Berkeley, CA 94709.ORCID 0000-0002-8821-0509
Gillian L GalfordRubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington VT 05401.ORCID 0000-0003-2192-7385
Rachelle K GouldRubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington VT 05401.ORCID 0000-0002-6307-8783
Cristina L MancillaGlobal Science, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC 10024.ORCID 0009-0008-8306-5833
Maura C MuldoonRubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington VT 05401.
Gerald G SinghSchool of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria BC V8P 5C2, Canada.
Priscilla BaltezarSpace Enabled Research Group, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA 02139.
Yusuke KuwayamaSchool of Public Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD 21250.
Stephen PolaskyDepartment of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul MN 55108.ORCID 0000-0003-4934-2434
Amanda D RodewaldCornell Lab of Ornithology and Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14850.
Richard P SharpGlobal Science, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC 10024.
Elizabeth J TennantCharles H. Dyson School, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853.ORCID 0000-0003-3858-9693
Jiaying ZhaoDepartment of Psychology, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC V6Z 1T4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0902-4343
Benjamin S HalpernNational Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara CA 93101.

Funding

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 80NSSC23K0914
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Earth observationremote sensingsatellitesocietal benefitvalue of information

Identifiers

PMID41650232
PMCPMC12890935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.