Area-based social risk indices summarize residents' socioeconomic conditions but incompletely capture physical features of place that may affect health. We evaluated whether numerical representations of physical place produced by four geospatial foundation model families from 2022 satellite data explained residual variance in tract-level associations between the Area Deprivation Index, Social Deprivation Index, and Social Vulnerability Index with health outcomes. We used LightGBM to predict variables from the American Community Survey and 40 chronic disease and health-behavior outcomes from CDC PLACES across 82,646 census tracts in the contiguous United States, evaluating performance across 10 held-out states. Among survey variables, models were moderately predictive of some variables including housing type (R-squared up to 0.54) but weak for disability, unemployment, and income disparity. For health outcomes, models explained up to 54% of variance left unexplained by social risk indices, with the largest gains for annual checkups, arthritis, and high blood pressure. Mean total variance explained by geospatial foundation models across the 40 health-related outcomes increased from 0.31 in the smallest tract-size decile to 0.39 in the largest. Geospatial foundation models capture health-relevant features of place not represented by conventional social risk indices and may usefully augment them in epidemiological analyses.
While accurate measurement of socioeconomic indicators remains challenging in data-scarce regions, which limits policy interventions and resource allocation, high-resolution geospatial data is widely available and can contain information on various livability statistics. We investigate which physical features are encoded within foundation model embeddings, such as AlphaEarth, AnySat, and TerraMind, and provide a systematic framework for identifying the most predictive geospatial indicators. By analyzing how different types of geospatial data influence urban livability predictions, our approach enables researchers to prioritize the most informative features for their specific applications. Additionally, we demonstrate how to leverage foundation model embeddings to enhance prediction performance for these outcomes. This work contributes a principled methodology for extracting actionable information from satellite imagery while accounting for complex spatial dependencies, with applications in predicting urban livability in regions with limited observation data.
Reliable subnational population estimates are essential for applications, yet remain difficult where censuses are sparse, outdated or spatially coarse. Existing population-mapping workflows rely on hand-built geospatial covariates, such as settlement extent, night-time lights, and environmental conditions, which must be assembled and harmonised across scales and geographies. Geospatial foundation models offer an alternative by learning reusable representations of place from more multifaceted and heterogeneous data sources. Here, we benchmark Population Dynamics Foundation Model (PDFM) embeddings against the harmonised geospatial covariates for subnational population estimation in Brazil, Nigeria and the United States. Under geographically structured validation, PDFM increased predictive fit by a median of 20.1% (IQR: 10.0-33.2%, across country-model comparisons) reduction in unexplained variance, and reduced Kullback-Leibler divergence by 23.2% (9.2-26.2%). However, these gains were uneven. PDFM was most advantageous where the geospatial covariates weakly characterised settlement context, such as larger and less-developed subnational areas. Moreover, PDFM performance was scale-coupled with embeddings providing less flexible transfer across spatial aggregations than geospatial covariates. These findings showed that geospatial foundation-model representations of place can improve population estimation in data poor settings, but their benefits break down predictably under spatial scale mismatch, revealing a fundamental limitation of current geospatial AI.
Geospatial foundation models (GFMs) have been proposed as generalizable backbones for disaster response, land-cover mapping, food-security monitoring, and other high-stakes Earth-observation tasks. Yet the published work about these models does not give reviewers or users enough information to tell which model fits a given task. We argue that nobody knows what the current state of the art is in geospatial foundation models. The methods may be useful, but the GFM literature does not standardize evaluations, training and testing protocols, released weights, or pretraining controls well enough for anyone to compare or rank them. In a 152-paper audit, we find 46 cross-paper disagreements of at least 10 points for the same model, benchmark, and protocol; 94/126 papers with extractable pretraining data use a configuration no other paper uses; and 39% of GFM papers release no model weights. This lack of community standards can be solved. We propose six concrete expectations: named-license weight release, shared core evaluations, copied-versus-rerun baseline annotations, variance reporting, one shared evaluation harness, and data-vs-architecture-vs-algorithm controls. These gaps are a coordination failure, not a fault of any individual lab; the authors of this paper, like many others in the GFM community, have contributed to them. Rather than just critiquing the community, we aim to provide concrete steps toward a shared understanding of how to innovate GFMs.