How Usable Are Geospatial Foundation Models? A Systematic Evaluation of 89 Models
Abstract
Geospatial foundation models (GeoFMs) offer transformative potential for environmental monitoring, yet adoption among ecologists is uneven. Most evaluations are model-centric, focusing on architecture and benchmark accuracy, which overlooks whether the systems are usable by their intended audiences. To address this gap, we first conducted a pilot expert elicitation survey with ecology and conservation scientists that helped us identify misalignments between current GeoFM development priorities and their needs. Informed by these findings and based on HCI theory, we created a seven-dimension evaluation covering Access & Deployment, Interaction & Customization, Trust & Transparency, Community & Support, Scientific Permanence, Multilingual Support, and Offline Usability. Then, two raters applied this rubric to 89 GeoFMs. We found distinct accessibility gaps where nearly a third provide no support to practitioners beyond their source code. Dimensions along which ratings were highly consistent function as field-level diagnostics, revealing where there is room for improvement for current GeoFMs.
Cite
@article{arxiv.2608.03804,
title = {How Usable Are Geospatial Foundation Models? A Systematic Evaluation of 89 Models},
author = {Robin Young and Artyom Gabtraupov and Kenzy Soror and Srinivasan Keshav},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2608.03804},
year = {2026}
}