CONVEI publications and products
Establishing Baselines: Interest and Community Capacity for Valuing Earth Science Information
This report presents findings from a baseline assessment conducted by the Collaborative Network for Valuing Earth Information (CONVEI) to examine interest in and capacity for valuing Earth Science Information (ESI). Drawing on responses from more than 120 participants, the assessment identifies key capacity gaps, barriers to adoption, and motivations that shape engagement in ESI valuation activities.
The assessment focused on two groups: practitioners already engaged in ESI valuation and ESI producers or users who have not yet incorporated socioeconomic assessments into their work. While familiarity with valuation concepts was relatively high (83%), only 25% of respondents had conducted an ESI-specific assessment, and overall interest in adoption remained low. The most cited barriers included lack of time, limited training opportunities, insufficient institutional incentives, and unclear professional benefits. Although respondents generally recognized the purpose and potential value of ESI assessments, few were willing to invest the time or resources needed to carry them out.
Broader and sustained adoption will require a cultural shift supported by institutional incentives, clearer alignment with professional goals, and visible demand from funders. These findings inform a set of short- and long-term recommendations to strengthen capacity and uptake of valuation practices, including actions CONVEI can implement directly and efforts requiring coordination across the broader community of practice.
Literature Review: Assessing Societal Benefits of Earth Science Information
A Systematic Map of Methods for Assessing Societal Benefits of Earth Science Information
Earth science information (ESI) from satellites and other remote sensing technologies is critical for managing weather forecasts, agriculture, disasters, and more. Yet the societal value of ESI—how it improves real-world decisions and outcomes—remains poorly understood. In this study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), we reviewed 13,823 publications and identified 171 studies that applied ESI in a decision context and used a valuation method to compare outcomes with and without ESI. This review allowed us to examine how researchers measure the societal value of ESI and the types of values they consider.
The majority of these studies employed decision analysis methods, such as Value of Information and Cost-Benefit Analysis, and emphasized quantitative outcomes such as profit, crop yield, or lives saved, particularly in agricultural contexts. Far fewer 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.
We also found that while many studies demonstrate the scientific usefulness of ESI, they stop short of showing why that science matters to society. The paper highlights where valuation methods are strongest, where critical gaps remain, and what range of values are captured in the current literature.