Read full press release by Sonia Fernandez here. 

They’re all around us: sensors and satellites, radars and drones. These tools form vast  remote sensing networks that collect data on the climate, the ground, the air, and the water. This information is immensely useful for research, conservation, and disaster preparedness. But, according to an interdisciplinary group of Earth science researchers in a paper led by Casey O’Hara of UC Santa Barbara, we’re only just scratching the surface of understanding just how beneficial Earth Science Information can be.

“We’re trying to use the information we gather from all this instrumentation to answer questions, but we don’t just want to know the scientific answers to these questions; we want to be able to take that science and use that to benefit society,” said O’Hara, who is a project scientist at the campus’s National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS). However, O’Hara notes that the broad societal value of this Earth science information (ESI) is currently poorly understood. To shed light on the topic, the researchers have mapped out methods for assessing the societal benefits of ESI. It is an effort that could lead to more effective uses of remote sensing technology while increasing the tangible and intangible benefits to people at large.

The findings are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“My interest was sparked by realizing that we often measure what is easy to measure, rather than what matters most to the people on the ground,” said co-author and UC Berkeley professor of conservation science Alejandra Echeverri. “Some humans don’t just view nature as a commodity or a resource to be used. When we only use econometric metrics to value ESI, we miss the relational values … things like cultural identity, aesthetic beauty or place attachment to the landscapes and seascapes that matter most to us.”

Echeverri, whose work often involves mapping species distributions and forest cover, notes that while data is instrumentally useful, it often lacks a human dimension.

“I have often wished for a relational valuation overlay; one that pixelates the social,” Echeverri said. “For instance, are there places in the forest where people feel safer? What about areas that contribute to public well-being, or that inspire communities to create music, art, or poetry? We need to measure those intangible values just as rigorously as we measure canopy cover.”