Who reads the Earth's archives? Geography, Income, and the Uneven Evidence Base for a Shared Planet
Abstract
Global environmental assessments depend on natural-archive evidence, yet where this evidence is produced and how its geography maps onto the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) remains unclear. Here we map the sampling and publication geography of 33,145 studies of past environments, tracing each to the SDG it addresses. The geography is highly unequal. A group of 25 countries is home to 55% of world population but accounts for 81% of sampling and 89% of publication credit, with per capita evidence output about seven times higher and all eleven goals drawing 82–90% of their evidence from them. Income acts as a threshold rather than a gradient: the elasticity of output to income is flat below about 41,000 PPP dollars per capita, where its slope with respect to income is close to zero, and steps up above it. Sampling and publication are concentrated in the same countries, so sample accessibility is unlikely to be the main constraint; the deficit is more consistent with limited analytical capacity. The evidence base for the SDGs therefore reflects a minority's research geography, not the distribution of the processes measured. Our findings provide a baseline for measuring commitments to widen participation and identify analytical capacity, not sample access, as the binding constraint on whose evidence is used in global assessments.
Related
- Uneven TCR chain pairing constraints govern epitope recognition
- Uneven research attention to biodiversity loss revealed by large language models
- Uneven distribution of thiol precursors across red grape berry compartments shapes wine aroma quality: effects of variety, vintage, and skin composition
- A call for sharing phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility data alongside bacterial genome sequence data in public archives
- Beyond elevation: climate, geography, and the diversification of Himalayan Rhododendrons. A commentary on ‘Phenotypic and genetic variation among Rhododendron arboreum species complex widely distributed throughout the Himalayas suggests an obscure geographic origin of the clade’
BibTeX
@misc{fan2026reads,
title = {{Who reads the Earth's archives? Geography, Income, and the Uneven Evidence Base for a Shared Planet}},
author = {Lingli Fan and Yiming Lei and Yufei Chen and Qian Huang and Hui Jia and Shan Jiang and Jingchun Liu and Haoliang Lu and Chongling Yan and Hualong Hong},
howpublished = {EcoEvoRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.32942/x26x2j},
url = {https://ecoevorxiv.org/repository/view/15462/},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Who reads the Earth's archives? Geography, Income, and the Uneven Evidence Base for a Shared Planet
AU - Lingli Fan
AU - Yiming Lei
AU - Yufei Chen
AU - Qian Huang
AU - Hui Jia
AU - Shan Jiang
AU - Jingchun Liu
AU - Haoliang Lu
AU - Chongling Yan
AU - Hualong Hong
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/13
PB - EcoEvoRxiv
DO - 10.32942/x26x2j
UR - https://ecoevorxiv.org/repository/view/15462/
AB - Global environmental assessments depend on natural-archive evidence, yet where this evidence is produced and how its geography maps onto the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) remains unclear. Here we map the sampling and publication geography of 33,145 studies of past environments, tracing each to the SDG it addresses. The geography is highly unequal. A group of 25 countries is home to 55% of world population but accounts for 81% of sampling and 89% of publication credit, with per capita evidence output about seven times higher and all eleven goals drawing 82–90% of their evidence from them. Income acts as a threshold rather than a gradient: the elasticity of output to income is flat below about 41,000 PPP dollars per capita, where its slope with respect to income is close to zero, and steps up above it. Sampling and publication are concentrated in the same countries, so sample accessibility is unlikely to be the main constraint; the deficit is more consistent with limited analytical capacity. The evidence base for the SDGs therefore reflects a minority's research geography, not the distribution of the processes measured. Our findings provide a baseline for measuring commitments to widen participation and identify analytical capacity, not sample access, as the binding constraint on whose evidence is used in global assessments.
ER -