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

• 成果类型: Article
• 署名作者: O'Hara, Casey C.; Baez-Schon, Mabel; Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca; Cheng, Samantha H.; Echeverri, Alejandra; Galford, Gillian L.; Gould, Rachelle K.; Mancilla, Cristina L.; Muldoon, Maura C.; Singh, Gerald G.; Baltezar, Priscilla; Kuwayama, Yusuke; Polasky, Stephen; Rodewald, Amanda D.; Sharp, Richard P.; Tennant, Elizabeth J.; Zhao, Jiaying; Halpern, Benjamin S.
• 署名单位: University of California System; University of California Santa Barbara; World Wildlife Fund; University of California System; University of California Berkeley; University of Vermont; University of Vermont; University of Victoria; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); University System of Maryland; University of Maryland Baltimore; University of Minnesota System; University of Minnesota Twin Cities; Cornell University; Cornell University; Cornell University; University of British Columbia; University of California System; University of California Santa Barbara
• 刊物名称: PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
• ISSN/ISSBN: 0027-8424; 1091-6490
• DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2524370123
• 发表日期: 2026-02-10
• 页码: e2524370123
• 关键词: satellite; Remote sensing; value of information; societal benefit; Earth observation; services; reviews; VALUES; SPACE

摘要

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.