Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Pan-Sharpening and Spectral Resolution on Vineyard Segmentation through Machine Learning
Next Article in Special Issue
Remote Sensing and Multi-Criteria Evaluation for Malaria Risk Mapping to Support Indoor Residual Spraying Prioritization in the Central Highlands of Madagascar
Previous Article in Journal
Wind-Forced Delayed Action Oscillator in Tropical Oceans with Satellite Multi-Sensor Observations
Previous Article in Special Issue
Spatial Modeling of Mosquito Vectors for Rift Valley Fever Virus in Northern Senegal: Integrating Satellite-Derived Meteorological Estimates in Population Dynamics Models
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Mapping Review on Urban Landscape Factors of Dengue Retrieved from Earth Observation Data, GIS Techniques, and Survey Questionnaires

1
IRD, UM, UR, UG, UA, UMR ESPACE-DEV, 34090 Montpellier, France
2
Naturalia Environnement, Site Agroparc, 20 rue Lawrence Durell, BP 31285, 84911 Avignon CEDEX 9, France
3
Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
4
International Joint Laboratory Sentinela, FIOCRUZ, UnB, IRD, Rio de Janeiro RJ-21040-900, Brazil
5
Instituto de Comunicação e Informação Científica e Tecnológica em Saúde (ICICT), Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (FIOCRUZ), Rio de Janeiro RJ-21040-900, Brazil
6
IRD, UR, UNC, CNRS, UMR Entropie, BP A5, 98848 Nouméa, New Caledonia
7
IRD, INSERM, AMU, UMR SESSTIM, 13007 Marseille, France
8
Aix Marseille Université, INSERM, IRD, UMR SESSTIM, Hôpital de la Timone, BioSTIC, Biostatistic & ICT, 13007 Marseille, France
9
CIRAD, UMR TETIS, F-97490 Sainte-Clotilde, Réunion, France
10
TETIS, UM, AgroParisTech, CIRAD, CNRS, INRAE, F-34090 Montpellier, France
11
Laboratório de Doenças Parasitárias, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (FIOCRUZ), Rio de Janeiro RJ-21040-900, Brazil
12
Laboratório de Ecologia de Doenças Transmissíveis na Amazônia, Leônidas & Maria Deane Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (FIOCRUZ), Manaus AM 69057-070, Brazil
13
Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (FIOCRUZ), Rio de Janeiro RJ-21040-900, Brazil
14
Department of Geography, University of Brasilia (UnB), Brasilia CEP 70910-900, Brazil
15
Center for Healthy Cities, Institute for China Sustainable Urbanization, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12(6), 932; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12060932
Submission received: 13 December 2019 / Revised: 12 February 2020 / Accepted: 20 February 2020 / Published: 13 March 2020

Abstract

:
To date, there is no effective treatment to cure dengue fever, a mosquito-borne disease which has a major impact on human populations in tropical and sub-tropical regions. Although the characteristics of dengue infection are well known, factors associated with landscape are highly scale dependent in time and space, and therefore difficult to monitor. We propose here a mapping review based on 78 articles that study the relationships between landscape factors and urban dengue cases considering household, neighborhood and administrative levels. Landscape factors were retrieved from survey questionnaires, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and remote sensing (RS) techniques. We structured these into groups composed of land cover, land use, and housing type and characteristics, as well as subgroups referring to construction material, urban typology, and infrastructure level. We mapped the co-occurrence networks associated with these factors, and analyzed their relevance according to a three-valued interpretation (positive, negative, non significant). From a methodological perspective, coupling RS and GIS techniques with field surveys including entomological observations should be systematically considered, as none digital land use or land cover variables appears to be an univocal determinant of dengue occurrences. Remote sensing urban mapping is however of interest to provide a geographical frame to distribute human population and movement in relation to their activities in the city, and as spatialized input variables for epidemiological and entomological models.

1. Introduction

Around half of the global population is exposed to the risk of dengue virus transmission [1]. This risk exists in nearly a hundred countries, with an estimated 390 million cases per year worldwide [2]. Urban areas are particularly at risk because of (i) the larval habitats of the Aedes mosquitoes [3,4,5] (ii) the high density of human populations, and (iii) the multiplicity of migration and commuting patterns, that could be catalysts for the rapid spread of infectious diseases [6].
Worldwide, Aedes aegypti is the primary vector of the virus that causes dengue, while Aedes albopictus, a homologous species with a lesser vector competency, is responsible for large dengue epidemics in southeast Asia [7]. The authors of Reference [8] have shown that Aedes distributions are currently the widest ever recorded, and are now extensive in all continents, including North America and Europe. Both species have become increasingly capable of exploiting man-made container habitats and human blood meal hosts [9,10], demonstrating their high-level of ecological plasticity and remarkable adaptation to urban settings [11]. The abundance and distribution of Aedes mosquitoes are influenced by climatic, topographic, land use and land cover (LULC) factors [10]. The relationship between entomological indicators of Aedes aegypti abundance and dengue virus infection is not straightforward [12], and it is difficult to identify a minimal entomological threshold for dengue transmission [13]. This is probably due to (i) the remarkable capacity of Aedes aegypti to survive and efficiently transmit the dengue virus even over low population densities [14] (ii) the irregularity of dengue epidemic patterns influenced by serotype dynamics and herd immunity at various level scales [15,16], and (iii) the competence of Aedes aegypti to transmit the dengue virus which is highly variable and depends on exogenous factors [12]. Urbanization has substantially increased the density, larval development rate, and adult survival time of Aedes albopictus, which in turn has potentially increased the vector capacity [4,17]. Many of the Aedes control strategies in development will have time-lagged impacts on adult populations ([18], e.g., Wolbachia and transgenics).
The complex association between the dengue virus (DENV), humans, and Aedes populations leads to the question of an appropriate geographic scale to measure the importance of the risk factors, as parameters and processes at a given scale are frequently not important or not predictive at another scale [13]. In the case of vectorial diseases, space may be seen as (i) an actor through the numerous spatially-dependent determinants (environmental, socio-economic, climatic) that influence the spread of the pathogen, and (ii) a medium where humans, reservoirs and vector populations interact and allow the circulation of the pathogen [19]. Although most dengue risk factors are likely to exhibit spatial dependence [13,20], few articles have applied spatial analysis methods in dengue studies [21]. Of the 263 articles on dengue outbreaks reviewed in the literature by Guo et al. [22] over the 1990–2015 period, around twenty deal with spatialized and environmental risk factors. The lack of information on the explicit spatial relationships between human and vector encounters and virus exposure have become a complicated challenge to prevention programs due to the lack of specific targets for vector control. Transportation networks, human mobility and socially structured human movements might shape dengue transmission [23]. The heterogeneity of a urban landscape could influence the biologically-relevant parameters that define vectorial capacity, through habitat suitability, socio-ecological processes and local temperature variations such as urban heat islands (UHI) [24]. However, the impacts of landscape structure on epidemiological processes have been largely neglected in the past [25], and there is still a need for a spatialized integrated approach at various spatial scales [20,24], to combine methods from epidemiology, ecology, statistics and geographic information sciences [25,26,27].
Over the last twenty-five years, advancement in spatial epidemiology has been largely driven by the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and georeferencing data systems [28,29]. In the case of vector-borne diseases, it may also include remote sensing techniques, which present a high-potential in disease risk mapping and environmental contextualizing [30,31,32,33], but probably still remains underutilised [34,35]. Remote sensing uses the notion of a proxy, that is a measurable variable which represents an indirect measure of an impractical physical variable that cannot be measured directly [35]. In the case of vector-borne diseases, entomological data surveys are often costly, labor-intensive and remain scarce [13,36]. Therefore, authors often use the proxies of mosquito breeding or resting sites based on the vector-knowledge reviewed in the literature [17,37]. Despite a more systematic use of GIS and the implementation of spatial statistical methods, the availability of health data and appropriate exposure data often remain limiting factors [38]. National passive notification systems present high variability in the standard of data and metadata storage, which highlights the importance of local knowledge through seroprevalence survey and questionnaire-based responses that can help to add clarity in uncertain regions [39].
We propose here a mapping review to create an inventory and identify the most relevant landscape factors potentially involved in dengue transmission in urban contexts from different data sources. Mapping reviews enable the contextualization of in-depth systematic literature reviews within broader literature and identification of gaps in the evidence base [40]. Mapping reviews share common purposes with scoping reviews, such as examining how research is conducted and structured on a certain topic, the identification of available evidence and the investigation of knowledge gaps [41,42], but provide a systematic map representation to categorize the included articles. Taking an interdisciplinary view, we propose a systematic search of articles into the literature to:
(i)
identify the landscape factors according to various sources and geographical units of production;
(ii)
map co-occurrence networks associated with the landscape factors, in order to identify the potential underlying structure of fields;
(iii)
evaluate qualitatively the respective importance of the above for the mapping of the dengue risk.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Systematic Search of Articles

This systematic review used the guidelines presented in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [43]. The methodology is summarized in Figure 1 and the detailed steps are presented hereafter. Data at the identification and the screening process steps were extracted by two independent researchers (RM and ZL), and discrepancies were resolved concordantly. The searches were performed in four on-line bibliographic databases, from inception to 31 December 2019:
  • Science Direct: e.g., Annals of Epidemiology, of Global Health, of Tropical Biomedicine, International Journal for Parasitology, Acta Tropica, Infectious Disease Clinics of North America, etc.;
  • Web of Science: e.g., International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Medicine, Environment Development and Sustainability, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Journal of Medical Entomology, etc.;
  • PubMed: e.g., International Journal of Health Geographics, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases, etc.;
  • Scopus: e.g., e.g., Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, BMC Infectious Diseases, Epidemiology and Infection, Geocarto International, etc.;
and considered either “all fields” (including bibliography references) or only “title-keywords-abstract” according to the database query form, and limited to the type “journal article”. The logical structure of the queries was based on the following formula:
(i)
dengue AND (urba* OR cit*) AND (“land use” OR “land cover” OR landscape OR dwelling OR habitation)
The character * being the classical symbol for regular expressions, corresponding to any character or group of characters, for example, urba* refers to the words urban, urbanization, and so forth. No constraints on the study period and language were imposed in the search queries. All search records from the four on-line databases were then combined together [n = 2342], using the free and open-source reference management software Zotero (https://www.zotero.org/). In addition, a search in Google Scholar® was done to avoid the omission of relevant articles [n = 272]. Duplicates [n = 311] were automatically removed from the [n = 2614] combined records leading to [n = 2303] at the end of the identification stage.

2.2. Screening, Selection Criteria, Risk of Bias, and Contribution of the Articles

A systematic checking of the titles and abstracts was conducted in order to select only the peer-reviewed original research articles dealing with the relationships between landscape factors and dengue cases, leading to [n = 234] at the end of the screening step, excluding those deemed irrelevant to the topic. Based on a full text reading, screened studies at the previous step were included if:
(i)
they consider geographical units within a city;
(ii)
they included spatialized dengue cases, collected by passive notification systems or by serological surveys;
(iii)
they identified and characterized the influence of landscape factors on dengue occurrences in an urban context;
(iv)
they described the explicit relationships between landscape classes and dengue data.
In contrast, studies that:
(i)
consider rural areas, or include large part uncovered by urban areas;
(ii)
do not consider dengue occurrences, but solely Aedes mosquitoes as proxy of dengue presence;
(iii)
do not include any explicit landscape feature, for example, solely consider meteorological variables (temperature, wind speed etc.) or socio-economic variables (income, status etc.);
(iv)
do not bring any evidence or information on the used models to perform the relationship between dengue occurrences and landscape features;
were excluded, which finally resulted in [n = 78] articles included in the review, at the end of the eligibility step. A total of 156 articles were discarded at the end the screening stage based on criteria 1 (does not consider an urban geographical unit of a city, [n = 36]), criteria 2 (does not consider spatialized dengue cases [n = 26]), criteria 3 (does not consider at least one landscape factor, [n = 31]), criteria 4 (does not perform a relationship between dengue and landscape, [n = 49]), or based on an insufficiently described methodology ([n = 13]).
We considered landscape factors in a “broad” definition, centering around a virus perspective: vectors and humans are hosts, and their respective trajectories lead to a complex interaction, which facilitate or hamper the virus circulation. Therefore, we considered entomological variables and human densities or movements as dynamic features of the landscape. On the other hand, we limited our definition of landscape factors to physical variables, and discarded direct references to socio-economic data, as level of income, per capita gross domestic product (GDP), or unsatisfied basic needs. We have in the first place considered a “Built City”, i.e. a city as a physical entity, or the area devoted to primarily urban uses [44]. Such definition is in line with the global urban mapping approaches, and automatic extraction of built-up area [45,46,47]. As a proxy of human presence and Aedes habitats, urban areas within a city reflect a “certain density” of buildings, which threshold varies according to the geographical context and authors definition, out of the scope of this paper. We did not have either considered the question of city size, an issue of considerable significance in urban and regional analysis.
Various methods exist to appraise the quality of studies included in a review, and assess the corresponding risk of bias. These methods differ greatly in applicability across study designs, and approaches: e.g., scale vs checklist, presence/absence of summary score etc. [48]. During the screening stage, we performed a first “minimum quality threshold associated to the thematic criteria” (Figure 1) in order to discard articles were the data set or the methodological descriptions remain unclear. At the eligible stage, we included a checklist on key features of the 78 included articles based on a four-valued choice (“yes”, “no”, “partial”, “can’t tell”) to characterize (i) the completeness of the epidemiological and the entomological dataset (ii) the degree of maturity of the methods to produce the landscape factors (iii) the characterization of the dengue–Landscape relationship. We also provide an overall appraisal of the level of contributive information respect to the topic “dengue–relationship characterization” (from 1: high to 4: poor). These information are available in a table format as Supplementary Materials.
Our entire bibliographic database, structured according to the PRISMA steps, may be consulted at the following web address: https://www.zotero.org/groups/2159925/article-review_dengue_landscape/items/collectionKey/. By browsing the Zotero folders, readers could see the different results obtained through the systematic requests on the one-line databases, and by picking one particular article in the “non eligible” folder, readers could visualize the reason associated to the inclusion/exclusion decision in the note section (right window in the online application).

2.3. Structuring of the Information Extracted from the Included Articles

We referenced the included articles by an identification (id) number assigned alphabetically from 1 to 78, which corresponded to reference numbers [135] (Ali et al., 2003) to [212] (Zellweger et al., 2017) in the bibliography section (please refer to the appendix for a full description). We manually extracted the information concerning the data, the methods, and the main results to build three analysis tables, according to the following categories (please refer to the appendix section for exhaustive tables):
(i)
the geographical context: country, study area (city), geographical unit of spatial analysis (Table 1 and Appendix A);
(ii)
the epidemiological descriptors: start and end years of an outbreak or survey, dengue data type (incidence, prevalence, case number), medical analysis to confirm the diagnosis (clinical signs, laboratory analysis), number of dengue cases (and incidence rate when available), spatial variation and pattern(s) observed, vector species involved (Table 2 and Appendix A);
(iii)
the landscape factors: data source according to three subcategories: remote sensing images (sensor name), Geographic Information System (GIS) layers, and survey questionnaires. We also extrapolated the type of proxy associated (i.e., the element of the transmission cycle represented, for example, “exposure to Aedes bite”), and the type of data (e.g., land use or housing type and characteristics) according to a two-level classification, called data group and sub-group, respectively (Table 3 and Appendix A);
(iv)
the search of a relationship between urban determinants and dengue cases: type of statistical and spatial methods used to quantify the relationship between dengue cases and environmental determinants, interpretation of the relationship through a three-valued index: positive (+), negative (−), or non-significant (NS) (Table 3 and Appendix A).

2.4. Analysis and Representation of the Information

2.4.1. Cartographic Representation

Based on the information extracted from the geographical context and the epidemiological information, we mapped the cities corresponding to the 78 study sites (QGIS LTR 3.4). We distinguished the types of epidemiological data according to their sources: passive surveillance system, or serological studies (incidence or prevalence). We also mapped the techniques employed to produce the information related to landscape factors: survey questionnaire, GIS data, and remote sensing imagery.

2.4.2. Co-Word Analysis through Self-Defined Tags Co-Occurrences

To understand how landscapes factors are produced and those that could be critical in urban dengue transmission, we adapted a method derived from bibliometric visualization techniques (Figure 2). Such approaches are based on the mapping of a network, which represents the degree of keyword co-occurrence of predefined article descriptors, like co-authors, or tags. Co-word networks may help to identify the conceptual structure, that uncovers links between concepts through term co-occurrence. Promising implementations of such literature analysis tool have been recently developed ([49,50], NAILS, bibliometrix). To perform this network mapping, here we used VOSviewer software (V1.6.11), a tool for constructing and visualizing bibliometric networks [51], and already used to perform review analysis ([33], e.g., Remote Sensing in Human Health). To map the structure associated with the landscape factor production, we exported the bibliographic references according to three categories: remote sensing images, GIS data, and survey questionnaire. From the bibliometric manager (Zotero 5.0.73), we chose a standardized tag format developed by Research Information Systems (RIS), compatible with VOSviewer and the module create map based on bibliographic data. To map the networks, we chose Co-occurrences with Keywords as units of analysis, associated with the full counting method. Here, keywords refer to self-defined tags, identified by the authors of this review, and associated with landscape factors, structuring terms, and a three-valued interpretation associated with the dengue-landscape relationship (positive, negative, or non-significant) (Figure 2). We defined the minimum number of occurrences as 1, in order to map the entire landscape factor network. Here, a node is associated with a tag (or keyword), with an edge representing a link of co-occurrence between two tags. To map the networks associated with the nature of the relationships between the landscape factors and the observed dengue cases, we adopted the same approach for each of the four defined spatial units: household, neighborhood, small-administrative, large-administrative (including city-level (Figure 2). As VOSviewer is mainly designed to visualize large maps containing thousands of items, it could have been challenging to read the full-network, so we added a post-treatment step, in order to make some items more readable by modifying the character font (Inkscape, version 0.92.4).
Survey questionnaires and census data originate from socio-geographical approaches, while entomological observations are part of medical entomology. As these were mainly collected during household investigation, they were associated it with survey questionnaires in the data structure representation, as part of socio-ecological surveys.

3. Results from Information Extraction

3.1. Geographical and Epidemiological Contexts

Temporality and location of the included articles (Figure 3):
  • The oldest article was published in 1986, and refers to a dengue transmission episode observed in two Puerto Rican communities which occurred in 1982 (id: 73). Four articles were published in the 1990s, and refer to putative determinants and predictors of infection in Mexico (id: 34), risk factors observed in Puerto Rico (id: 55), determinants of dengue-2 infection in Australia (id: 43), and relationship between Breteau, House index (HI), and occurrences of dengue in Malaysia (id: 60);
  • Twenty articles were published between 2000 and 2009, mainly in Brazil (ids: 18, 27, 28, 46, 61, 62), Central America (ids: 7, 9, 12, 21, 25, 52, 69), South America (id: 56), South and East Asia, Bangladesh (id: 1), and Thailand (ids: 65, 70, 71). Two articles were published in West and Central Pacific, Palau (id: 4), and Hawaii (id: 26);
  • From 2010 and before 2015, we identified 16 articles, which were concerned principally with Central and South America: Costa Rica (id: 44), Colombia (id: 45), Ecuador (id: 59), and Brazil (ids: 5, 6, 8, 48), East Asia: in China (ids: 15, 36, 74), in Malaysia (id: 19, 75), in Thailand (ids: 35, 57), and in the Philippines (id: 23). One of the two articles published in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia) was from 2011 (id: 32);
  • Since 2015, the majority of the thirty-seven study sites were located in South Asia, mainly in China (ids: 10, 13, 14, 16, 29, 37, 39, 50, 51, 53, 66, 76), India (id: 41, 63) and Pakistan (id: 40), and South East Asia: Vietnam (ids: 33, 68), Singapore (ids: 24, 58, 77), Malaysia (id: 67), and Indonesia (ids: 31, 49, 54, 72). Five articles since 2105 related to Central and South America: Mexico (id: 22), Brazil (ids: 3, 47), Argentina (id: 11), Colombia (ids: 17, 42), and Ecuador (ids: 30, 38). We found only one article concerning Africa (Kenya), published in 2016 (id: 20), and the second article of the Middle East (Saudi Arabia) which was from 2019 (id: 2);
  • Various articles concern urban areas located in an insular context: Palau in the western Pacific (id: 4), Puerto Rico (id: 55), Hawaii (id: 26), Singapore (ids: 24, 77), Taiwan (Province of China) (ids: 15, 16, 74), Trinidad (id: 12) and New Caledonia (ids: 64, 78). Two studies make a cross-border comparison, between USA and Mexico border-cities (ids: 9, 52 );
  • Most study sites are limited to a unique city, excepted in some cases, which consider various urban areas (id: 2, multi-stage stratified cluster sampling in four cities of Saudi Arabia), (id: 34, serosurvey in 70 localities of Mexico), (id: 44, correlational epidemiological study conducted in the country’s 81 cantons of Costa Rica), (id: 45, 30 selected municipalities of Colombia’s Córdoba Department), (id:50, seven cities of the Guangdong province, located at the Pearl River estuary) (id: 67, various degrees of urbanization between cities in Malaysia), (id: 64, different elevation levels in New Caledonia);
  • Ten articles focused on the city of Guangzhou, located in the south-central part of Guangdong Province in China (ids: 10, 13, 14, 36, 37, 39, 51, 53, 66, 76). Guangzhou is considered as “the center of transportation, finance, industry and trade in southern China and has frequent economic and cultural communication with the nations of Southeast Asia and Africa” (id: 14). If historically, dengue fever has re-emerged in China in 1978 from its first appearance in Foshan city (Guangdong province), Guangzhou, with its 14.49 millions resident population, has “always been the hardest hit area of [dengue fever] DF in Guangdong Province and China”, with epidemic episodes that have “gradually intensified” (ids: 14, 39);
  • Collectively, these review articles propose a broad spatial sampling of the inter-tropical belt, traditionally associated with dengue occurrences [2], and consider dengue cases observed over a thirty seven year time–span, between 1982 and 2019 (Figure 3).
Epidemiological characteristics of the included articles:
  • The dengue virus can cause a large range of symptoms, ranging from an asymptomatic form, which includes the vast majority of infections, and may be associated with various degrees of infection: dengue fever (DF), dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF) to the potentially fatal dengue shock syndrome (DSS) [52]. Generally, most articles refer to dengue cases that include a broad interpretation of the disease expression, especially fever (DF). Twelve studies in the method section refer explicitly to DHF cases (ids: 7, 12, 17, 25, 31, 38, 49, 59, 60, 65, 75, 68), and two to DSS (id: 31, 65). In Indonesia for example, only DHF cases are mandatorily reported (id: 49);
  • We identified 23 articles based on serological surveys performed by the authors (ids: 2, 7, 8, 9, 20, 22, 26, 28, 30, 34, 35, 43, 48, 49, 52, 55, 61, 67, 70, 71, 73, 75, and 77). In such approaches, based on fieldwork, household location is used to spatially identify the dengue cases. Fifty-five other articles were based on passive notification of cases collected by local and national health agencies. Such databases may collect the patient address or refer to an administrative division to locate the cases, without further information on a potential place of transmission (ids: 15, 16, 19, 23, 32, 35, 57, 64, 66, 78). A geocoding step is necessary where patients home addresses are available to associate (X, Y) coordinates in a GIS;
  • Geocoding was performed manually (ids: 3, 54, 65, 67, 69) or probably manually (ids: 11, 18, 17, 31), and in 5 cases by an automatic method (id: 42 R script-ArcGIS server, ids: 37 and 53 http://www.gpsspg.com/xGeocoding/) or probably automatic method (id: 46 MapInfo, id: 76 not described method). The authors may decide to spatially aggregate the dengue cases at a coarser resolution to perform the association with other data sources (id: 10, “Gross Domestic Product” at township/street level; id 38, census block);
  • Considering the temporal aspect, 26 articles use datasets, which cover at most three years. The longest time series of dengue cases was an uninterrupted 22 years dataset in the city of Guangzhou, China, from 1978 to 2014 (id: 66). Most publications aggregated dengue data and calculated the yearly average incidence rate;
  • Almost all of the 78 publications included articles which confirmed a highly non-uniform spatial distribution in the urban context, regardless of the spatial scale of analysis. Global or focal cluster detection are commonly based on global/local Moran’s index to detect the presence of overdispersion based on autocorrelation analysis [53], and is based on either a sliding circular window (cylinder, if the time dimension is considered), or consider each spatial unit towards contiguous neighbor units (ids: 10, 16, 17, 18, 38, 46, 54, 58, 65, 78). Its value comprises between [-1,+1], and reflects the assumptions about the spatial phenomenon in question to detect negative or positive spatial auto-correlation. In the articles of this review, a local Moran’s index often highlights the presence of a spatial correlation at fine scale. Various articles identify clusters (ids: 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 18, 24, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 46, 51, 53, 58, 63, 65, 70, 71, 74, 78), hotspots (ids: 10, 19, 50, 56, 59) and coldspots (id: 10, 50). In one study (id: 42), the authors tested several structures of spatially explicit Bayesian models in order to estimate the relative risk (RR) of dengue.
Entomological consideration in the included articles:
  • The majority of the articles only mention the implication of the Aedes vector in the introduction and/or the discussion sections, and exclude entomological consideration in the method or in the data acquisition. Nineteen articles performed entomological observations of: Aedes aegypti (ids: 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 24, 26, 28, 34, 52, 55, 58, 60, 61, 73), Ae. albopictus (ids: 1, 4, 9, 26, 58, 60, 66), or of Ae. (Stegomya) genus (ids: 12, 25, 65) without distinction between both species;
  • Thirty-six articles mentioned Aedes aegypti as the main or exclusive vector, six mentioned Ae. albopictus as the main or exclusive vector (ids: 10, 13, 39, 50, 51, 53), and ten mention both or just the Ae. (Stegomya) genus as responsible for the dengue transmission process (ids: 14, 16, 36, 41, 49, 54, 57, 67, 74, 75). Only one study dispensed with an entomological database prior to the survey, made available by the infectious disease surveillance system (id: 66, Notifiable Infectious Disease Report System (NIDRS), Guangzhou);
  • The potential heterogeneous nature of the spatial dispersion of mosquito density has been analysed in some studies (in relation withe dengue occurrences), through, notably (i) the intensity of larvae-positive breeding sites by properties inspected in each block, unsing the kernel estimator method (id: 5), parameterized with a flight distance of 280 m which is associated with the Aedes aegypti female [54], (ii) the extrapolation by ordinary kriging of entomological indicators associated with the four life stages of Ae. aegypti: (absolute) number of A. aegypti eggs in the block, and number of positive buildings for Ae. aegypti larvae-pupae and adults in the block, divided by the number of buildings surveyed in the block (id: 6).

3.2. Production of the Landscape Factors Associated to Dengue Cases

Type of approaches: We identified five approaches that led to the production of landscape characteristics (Figure 3 and Figure 4):
(i)
Survey questionnaire, including census data;
(ii)
in situ entomological observation;
(iii)
Geographical Information system (GIS) data;
(iv)
Topographical measurements;
(v)
Remote sensing data (RS data), originated from satellite images.
Data sources network considering all approaches: The graphical representation of the data sources network, considering all type of data, highlights the strong polarization between “survey questionnaire” and “remote sensing images” (Figure 4):
  • “RS images” are strongly connected to the “land cover” properties of the environment, while “survey questionnaire” is strongly connected to “housing characteristics”, “housing type”, “construction material” and “entomological observation”. “GIS data” sources are both connected to “remote sensing images” and “survey questionnaire”, highlighting its interface position as a bridge between human geography approaches and digital geography (e.g., [55]);
  • “GIS data” connect well to the “land use” characteristics of the environment, the “infrastructure level” and the “typology” of the urban area. It is noteworthy that the node “Aedes aegypti mention” is at the centre of the network, which shows that entomologist information relative to the 78 included studies, centred on observed dengue cases, are coming from a knowledge base of the mosquitoes rather than direct observations. Entomological observations concerning Aedes aegypti and albopictus, considered together or separately, belong to the “survey questionnaire” cluster, while Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus mentions belong to “remote sensing image” or “GIS data” clusters (Figure 4);
  • Considering the publication year associated with the data source (Figure 4), it is noteworthy that “survey questionnaire” and “entomological observations” are associated with the oldest publications, and “remote sensing” and “GIS data” with the most recent. However, the “remote sensing images” cluster is associated with the 2000–2015 period satellite missions (Landsat 5–7, MODIS, IKONOS, ALOS), and not to the most recent ones (e.g., Sentinel missions, except for id: 41). Satellite imagery and GIS data have been used to complete and contextualize some survey questionnaires in multi-sources studies, e.g., Google Earth images used for photo-interpretation (ids: 20, 57), normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) index and urban characteristics (id: 50), or GIS data used to localize entomological observations (ids: 24, 58) or altitude associated with the mosquitoes’ environment (ids: 21, 34, 44, 64);
  • By jointly using remote sensing and GIS data sources, some authors were able to describe both land use and land cover properties of the study area, e.g., vegetation index and urbanization level (id: 10), road network density and aging infrastructure (id: 14), bare soil detection and building type (id: 19), urban typology (“Urban Park”) and vegetation cover through NDVI index (id: 29), “urban village” and NDVI index (id: 51).
Data sources network considering remote sensing images: By mapping the structure of data from the “remote sensing images” source (Figure 5), we observe a strong structuring around the “land cover” properties of the landscape, mainly retrieved by the MODIS (500 m), ASTER (30 m), and Landsat 5 TM, 7 (30 m) moderate and high resolution sensors:
  • “Land cover” is characterized by:
    -
    surface temperature (ids: 3, 42, 47, 76);
    -
    detection of buildings through the brightness index (id: 56);
    -
    vegetation cover through NDVI and VFC (ids: 3, 10, 29, 36, 42, 44, 45, 47, 51, 56, 69, 76, 78);
    -
    water areas (ids: 14, 36, 41, 47, 56, 66, 67), and cropland (id: 36).
  • “Building” is characterized by roof shape (id: 54), density (ids: 31, 41, 57, 69, 70), and surroundings based on density and distance from other land cover/use classes, e.g., vegetation (ids: 31, 56, 57, 67, 69, 70, 71), bare soil (ids: 19, 71), water-areas (ids: 56, 67, 71), cropland (ids: 36, 70), or road density (id: 36);
  • “Land use” characterization is associated with high resolution sensors like Landsat 8 (30 m XS, id: 10) and ALOS (10 m XS, id: 57), and overall with very high resolution sensors like Ikonos (4 m XS, id: 19), Quickbird (2.4 mm XS, id: 10, 31, 69), WorldView 2 (0.46 m PAN, id: 54), Google Earth (Digital globe imagery, id: 20, 40) images, and Spot 5 (2.5 m PAN, id: 14, 32);
  • “Land use” is thematically associated with “urban typology” and refers to the buildings function, e.g., residential, commercial, religious, industrial, or temporary construction (ids: 10, 19, 20, 57). Some authors define a local spatial index associated with the degree of urbanization and infrastructure of the area, e.g. the “percentage of urban villages” (ids: 10, 53), the percentage of “village area with vegetation” (id: 71), or the “quality of neighborhood” (id: 32).
Data sources network considering GIS: ”GIS data” sources are initially collected from various sources such as digitised maps, geocoded census data, or in situ observations. The network shows a strong connection with the “land use” properties of the environment (Figure 5). Urban landscape is characterized through:
  • “urban typology” associated with (i) urban morphology with construction height, e.g. “high or low-rise housing” (id: 58), (ii) building function, e.g., “tire repair shops” (id: 18) (ii) area functions, e.g., “residential/commercial/recreation” areas (ids: 19, 23, 57), “informal settlement” areas (id: 23, 51), “Park” (id: 29) “cemeteries” (id: 18);
  • “infrastructure level”, e.g., proximity to the hospitals (id: 1), water network connection (ids: 15, 18, 23), canal and ditches (id: 15), “road density” or “parks area”(ids: 10, 18, 37, 50, 51);
  • “housing type”, e.g., connections between houses. Some authors also considered topographic data, like shade or altitude, which influence the Aedes presence;
  • GIS Land cover data indicates the presence of water areas and wetland (id: 16), and cropland (id: 16, 29);
  • “Human presence” is characterized by geocoded density (id: 7);
Data sources network considering survey questionnaires: In the context of this mapping review, “survey questionnaires” associated with census data constitute the largest data sources for landscape characterization associated with dengue cases (Figure 6), and inform at household-level according to:
  • housing type, with distinction between apartment, house, empty house, poor-condition house, old flat, sheds, shanty, villa with or without garden (ids: 2, 8, 13, 30, 38, 44, 48, 65, 74, 77), the number of storeys (ids: 26, 35, 46, 75, 77), and the construction material used to build the house: wood, stone, concrete, brick-wood, bamboo, or mixed material (ids: 4, 35, 55, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77);
  • housing characteristics, by observing the presence/absence of: screens on the windows (ids: 4, 13, 26, 30, 35, 43, 65, 70, 73), shade in the patio (id: 30) house windows (id: 35), bednets (id: 71) air conditioning system (id: 9, 43), gutter rain water (id: 27), the connection to the water network or the presence of water containers (id: 8, 30, 43), the connection to a sewage system (ids: 8, 18, 68) or the collection of garbage and waste (ids: 8, 27, 30).
At an aggregate-level, for example, neighborhood or small-administrative level, survey questionnaires provide information about:
  • land use through the characterization of (i) the urban typology, e.g., slum-like areas (ids: 3, 28, 65, 73), distinction between commercial, residential, landmarks (ids: 17, 35, 65, 74), neighbor proximity (id: 26) (ii) the infrastructure level, often derived from “census data”, e.g., street drainage (ids: 9, 21, 65), water network (ids: 17, 59, 62), garbage collection (ids: 17, 65), public services availability (ids: 21, 61, 62, 63), and access to paved road (id: 38);
  • some scarce information about the land cover in the surroundings: (i) the presence and characteristics of the vegetation, e.g., distance to “vegetation”, “tree height”, or “forested areas” (ids: 26, 63, 71, 73, 75) (ii) the presence of “bare soil” or cropland (id: 4);
  • the topography of the urban site with the observation of the shade (ids: 26, 73), or the orientation of the street relative to the prevailing wind (id: 27);
  • human density (ids: 17, 44, 61, 62, 74, 77), in some cases associated to some socio-economic characteristics (id: 63), human mobility (ids: 11, 77), or commuting patterns (ids: 28, 74).
Entomological observations are divided between:
  • direct mosquito observation at the different stages, through classical entomological (Breteau/house/container) index or self-defined index such as “number of females Aedes aegypti per person” (ids: 1, 4, 5, 6, 12, 24, 26, 28, 33, 34, 58, 59, 60, 68, 73);
  • breeding and resting sites, e.g., discarded container, uncovered water container, standing water in various recipients (ids: 9, 20, 25, 30, 34), or premises index (id: 61).

4. Dengue–Landscape Relationship Modeling

4.1. Proxies According to the Geographical Units of Spatial Analysis

Of the articles in this review, all the relationships between dengue occurrence and landscape features were based on aggregated data at a given geographic level. Relationships were not identified for individual dengue cases, except in id 22 (human mobility patterns of recently DENV-infected subjects). Since we considered data from survey questionnaires, a large number of relationships were identified at fine scale household-level, where the authors mainly considered the influence of house type and characteristics in the dengue transmission process, and exposure to Aedes bites by including entomological observations (ids: 1, 4, 8, 12, 13, 20, 25, 26, 34, 35, 48, 52, 55, 60, 68, 75, 77). Urban administrative divisions were often considered because (i) they represented the legal unit of dengue cases reports (ii) other datasets, such as demographic or socio-economic data, were aggregated and available at the same levels. Generally, the authors considered the smallest local administrative level, but we noticed a large diversity in the 78 articles in the names of organizations and the denomination of national administrative units: “Districts” (ids: 3, 32, 33, 36, 65), “Li” (id: 15), “BSA” (id: 16), Locality (id: 19), “Barrangay” (id: 23), “Cantones” (id: 44), “Municipios” (id: 62), “Colonies” (id: 63), “Villages” (id: 74), “health sectors” (ids: 27, 69) and “national census tracts” (ids: 11, 17, 38, 46). Five authors proposed a study considering the whole city (ids: 21, 41, 50, 64, 66) or very populated areas (id: 60). Various authors aggregated the data at the neighborhood level, considering dengue diffusion at fine scale linked with Aedes flight, or human density and proximity to Aedes presence (ids: 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, 18, 24, 28, 49, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 67, 70, 71, 73, 78). According to individual authors justifications, we interpreted the choice of a landscape factor, considered at a given geographical unit of analysis, by its link to one or several mechanisms involved in the dengue transmission process (Table 4):
  • ecological factors favorable to Aedes presence and development through direct entomological observations, or elements of the landscape favoring the presence of breeding-resting sites;
  • probabilities of human exposure to Aedes bites at household-level through small-scale proxies associated to the housing type or its characteristics;
  • probabilities of human-vector encounter considered at neighborhood, small and large administrative levels;
  • virus conservation and diffusion through human mobility.

4.2. Statistical Models

To quantify the relationships between urban landscape factors and dengue cases, the authors adopted methodologies based on statistical and spatial analysis fields, classically employed in spatial epidemiology or disease risks geography [38]. Correlation is commonly used to quantify the direction and strength of the relationship, through Pearson and Spearman (ranking) correlation coefficients (ids: 1, 24, 29, 31, 33, 42, 44, 53, 56, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 69, 76). The odds ratio, which quantifies the strength of the association between two events is also often used (ids: 13, 20, 25, 26, 27, 34, 48, 68). Ecological regression analysis was used to estimate a relationship equation between “dengue cases” and one or more independent “landscape-based predictors” at a given area-level, underlying several assumptions on the data distribution and its associated errors, such as independence between observed cases. Assuming a Gaussian conditional distribution of the dependent variable in respect to the predictors, several studies considered simple, multiple, or generalized linear models (ids: 17, 45, 47, 62, 66). Based on a Bernoulli conditional distribution of the categorical outcome variable in respect to its predictors, most of the authors used logistic and multivariate logistic regression models to estimate the probabilities of a dengue infection (ids: 2, 9, 13, 18, 22, 26, 39, 41, 43, 49, 70, 71, 75, 77). To introduce non-linearity terms due to the spatial dependence of the predictors, some authors considered the generalized additive model (GAM) (ids: 6, 10, 28, 50, 51). To adapt the model to local contexts, some authors used the geographically weighted regression method (GWR), which takes non-stationary variables into consideration and models the local relationships between predictors and dengue cases (ids: 14, 17, 32, 53, 54). Two studies considered a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM, id: 8, 29), a model that, in addition to the fixed effect, includes a random effect for which the hypothesis of independence of observations is no longer assumed [36].

5. Qualitative Relationships between Landscape Factors and Dengue Cases

5.1. Mapping of Relationships at Household-Level

Except for the use of air conditioning, which could appear as a protective factor (ids: 52, 55), the housing characteristics considered in the included articles generally presented non–significant relationships with dengue cases (Figure 7): e.g., the number of windows in a house, the distinction between “public” or “private” multi-storey flats, floor of principal entry, the use of water containers, or the housing size. Screens on windows might appear to be a protective factor in some cases (ids: 26, 43, 55, 70, 73), but the association with dengue cases was also observed as statistically non–significant (ids: 4, 13, 20, 30, 65), and positively associated (id: 35), which might reveals the high density of Aedes or vector-borne disease in the area. No clear relationship was generally associated with construction materials: e.g., wood can appear as non–significant (ids: 26, 55), positively (ids: 70, 73) or negatively (id: 71) associated to dengue cases according to the study. Concrete, stone, or brick do not appear to be protective factors (ids: 55, 65, 70, 71, 78). Entomological observations are generally positively associated with the presence of dengue: direct Aedes observations of adults, pupae, larvae, or infested and discarded containers (id: 1, 25, 34, 60). Aedes aegypti is much more cited than Ae. albopictus in the included articles. In the domestic environment of a house, the presence of shaded and vegetated areas, and the lack of street drainage appear as exposure factors (ids: 26, 30).

5.2. Mapping of Relationships at Neighborhood Level

At the neighborhood level, it is possible to define an urban typology associated with an area, by considering the housing type and the building functions (Figure 8). This led the authors to propose various urban ecotypes, and to consider the residential, commercial, or social function of a construction, after taking into consideration transportation or ecological aspects like density of roads or vegetation. Despite the difficulty in comparing authors’ self-definitions, the mix of residential and highly frequented areas, associated with multi-scale human mobility (e.g., road network density, ids: 14, 37), with vegetation in the surrounding areas generally show the strongest associations to dengue occurrences (ids: 10, 14, 19, 28, 35, 37, 51, 57). Considered separately as individual proxies, urban functions are generally not significant (ids: 18, 35). Slum–like or informal settlement areas may be positively associated with the presence of dengue (ids: 14, 28, 51, 53, 73), but not systematically (ids: 3, 49). Well structured urban areas, defined by a “quality index”, may have protective effects (id: 32). The height of buildings could have an influence: low-rise buildings may be more exposed than high-rise buildings (ids: 49, 58). Few articles considered human density directly as a proxy at neighborhood level, and it appears non significant or positively related to dengue cases (ids: 7, 26, 35). Entomological observations are fewer than at household-level, and may show significant (e.g., with Aedes house index) or non–significant relationships (e.g., with Aedes eggs, larvae, and pupae abundance, or Breteau index, defined as the number of positive containers per 100 houses inspected).

5.3. Relationships at Administrative Units

The authors considered a small administrative level to integrate data from institutional sources at fine scale (Figure 9 and Figure 10). A co-occurrence network shows some similarities with the neighborhood level, highlighting the role of human density through residential area mapping (ids: 16, 19), and the importance of mixed areas, characterized by coming and going of people with some hot spots or a context favorable to the persistence of Aedes: urban villages (id: 10), deprived areas with medium-high density (id: 38, 44, 63), residential areas with commercial and industrial areas (id: 23), or informal settlement areas (id: 23). With regard to infrastructure level, it is useful to consider waste management and the state of the sewage networks (ids: 15, 27, 65), as well as road structure and density (ids: 10). The orientation of a street, the presence of empty houses, or the use of gutter rain are urban characteristics that could play a role in maintaining Aedes (id: 27, 74). Building height is also a variable of interest (id: 46). Some authors have information on human mobility, generally significantly associated with dengue cases, which highlights the usefulness of estimating human fluxes (ids: 11, 22, 77). Historical epidemiological data are scarce, but allow for the study of dengue urban patterns over time, and are especially significant when associated to DEN serotypes (id: 35). Entomological observations are not aggregated or available at the level of administrative units. The presence and density of the Aedes mosquitoes are addressed through prior knowledge on vector bio-ecology and remotely-sensed environmental data: (i) the classical index NDVI is used as a proxy of the vegetation, and is positively associated to dengue cases in two of the three studies (ids: 10, 42, 50), (ii) urban surface temperature was not significant (id: 42). At larger administrative levels, authors considered the influence of altitude, which is negatively correlated to dengue occurrences (ids: 21, 34, 44, 64). This result illustrates the influence of the temperature gradient on Aedes ecology. Human mobility is also correlated with dengue cases (id: 20, 22). Vegetation also seems positively associated with dengue occurrence (id: 36), although NDVI is associated with a negative relationship to dengue in two cases (id: 3, 45), which could be due to a decrease in residential surfaces in respect to vegetation surfaces.

6. Discussion

6.1. Methodological Considerations

The expansion of evidence-based practice across scientific disciplines has led to an increasing variety of review types. We chose a mapping review, which enables the contextualization of in-depth systematic literature reviews within broader literature and identification of gaps in the evidence base [40]. The network, based on calculating the barycenter of the structured textual information, is aimed at proposing a coherent synthesis in a graphical way. The forms of the network graph are however quite dependent on the way information is sorted, structured and grouped. Our work is limited to a broad descriptive and qualitative level, and thus may oversimplify the considerable variations (heterogeneity) between studies and their findings [40]. Mapping reviews do not usually include a quality assessment process to preselect the articles, which could limit considerably the quality of the information and analyses produced. To provide an assessment of the risk of bias, we proposed here a simple checklist on key features based of metadata completeness, and an overall appraisal of the level of contributive information respect to the topic “dengue–relationship characterization” (Supplementary Materials). In addition, we did not include conference papers, which could contain some relevant information at the front-line of the research. We focused on urban areas, but rural areas could contribute at least as much to the dissemination of dengue fever as cities [56]. In a context of significant increase of dengue publications over time [57], our study highlights that specific research on spatial epidemiology, like dengue landscape factors, is not at the front line compared to virology, biochemistry or molecular biology research areas. Surprisingly, we did not find any articles which follow our inclusion criteria related to other Aedes-borne diseases, like Zika and Chikungunya when we swap dengue to one of them. These can be relativized by the recent character of the massive outbreaks associated to the Zika flavivirus [58,59]. We found only one study concerning Africa, which might be due to (i) many other competing public health problems (e.g., malaria or Ebola) and limited resources [60], which cause a lack of diagnostic testing and systematic surveillance [61] and (ii) a less suitable environment for dengue [62], with potential differences in terms of vector efficiency and viral infectivity between Africa and other dengue-endemic regions [63]. However, depending on location, rapidly increasing urbanisation, and/or higher temperatures and increased rainfall could increase dengue incidence in the following decades [62,63]. In general, only one article mentioned a given landscape factor, which prevented us from performing a more in depth meta-analysis, and limited us to the present qualitative analysis.

6.2. Potential limitations in Dengue-Landscape Studies

6.2.1. Limitations Associated with Epidemiological and Entomological Data

Through this review, we noted that passive notification cases, reported by official health systems, and dengue serostatus surveys, performed by research teams, can show two different realities of dengue occurrences, relativizing in this way the comparison between the factors proposed in the types of studies. Passive case notification datasets present strong identified biases due to (i) the absence of asymptomatic cases (ii) the absence of symptomatic cases when patients do not consult because of, particularly, the distance to health centers, or their cultural habits, and (iii) misdiagnose based on insufficient medical evidence. On the other hand, intra-urban dengue seroprevalence surveys are based on a sampling strategy where assumptions and representativeness may be inaccurate, and could limit interpretation: lack of demonstrable spatial variation between self-defined areas (id: 8), complexity to define an appropriate urban ecosystem (id: 35), relative influence of contextual indicators versus individuals (id: 48), and limitation to school children population (ids: 49, 67). Unknown socio-demographic drivers, the retrospective nature of questionnaires, and associated recall bias are other issues that should be mentioned (id: 49).
Four distinct serotypes of DENV have been identified, and infection from one serotype confers protective immunity against that serotype but not against other serotypes [64]. Acquired immunity may therefore introduce a bias in any dengue pattern study. From that perspective, historical studies of dengue epidemics can provide valuable information. However, such data are scarce, and few studies have performed both IgM and IgG analysis in the correct time window. Early tests (up to day 7) using Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT–PCR) should be preferred because their specificity is much higher than serology, but only one study has performed a Plaque Reduction and Neutral Test (PRNT) to distinguish between dengue serotypes (id: 36). In one study, two time–periods have been considered to distinguish potential infections by DENV-1 and DENV-2 (id: 16).
Underreporting in dengue surveillance systems has been identified in various studies [65,66,67] demonstrate, through a systematic review, that a large proportion of the data from any affected population has not been captured through passive routine reporting—misdiagnosis or subclinical cases, non-users of health services, users of private versus traditional sectors, or certain age groups. In high endemic settings, however, if the dengue cases are geographically representative and laboratory confirmed, dengue data may be representative, to some extent, and possibly corrected by calculating an expansion factor. Improvements in dengue reporting could come from improvement in indicators/alert signals, laboratory support, motivation strategies, shifts in dengue serotypes or genotype surveillance, and data forms/entry/electronic-based reporting [66].
Dengue cases were rarely associated with entomological data, probably due to the difficulty in obtaining these data in a cost-effective way. Except for household-level studies, mosquitoes were generally considered from prior knowledge, and not from in situ observations. Aedes were sometimes considered as composed of a unique species, without differentiating albopictus from aegypti despite their different ecological behaviours. This point could however be relativized because of the remarkable ecological plasticity of both species, especially to urban settings [10,11].

6.2.2. The Difficulty in Defining a Geographical Unit of Spatial Analysis

The first requirement in performing a relationship between dengue cases and environmental determinants is the geolocation of the cases. Most of the selected studies do not go into detail on that point, except when an automated procedure has been implemented (id: 42). Generally, a hypothesis is made after dengue cases have been located at a patient’s home address as the transmission may have occurred at home or in the vicinity of the household. Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus are day time biting mosquitoes, which implies to consider human commuting pattern. Such hypothesis might be strengthened when considering an age stratification, as the mobility of elderly persons or young children mobility can be limited for example (ids: 17, 70). If the dengue cases are located within a given area, the probability of the transmission may increase up to a threshold distance, but it might become more difficult to identify the correct environmental determinants associated with the transmission. These proximity-hypotheses are consistent with local, density dependent transmission as key sources of viral diversity, and with home location being the focal point of transmission [68]. Using geolocated genotype and serotype data, Salje et al. [68] showed that in Bangkok (Thailand), dengue cases came from the same transmission chain for (i) 60% of cases living in less that 200 meters apart, and (ii) 3% of cases separated by 1 to 5 kilometers. At distances closer to 200 meters from a case, the authors estimated the effective number of chains of transmission to be 1.7, and that this number rises by a factor of 7 for each 10-fold increase. As in the large majority of ecological-related issues ([69], Modifable Area Unit Problem), the choice of an appropriate spatial unit to associate a relationship between dengue cases and their risk factors has a strong influence on effective analysis. We identified various type of infra-urban areas of spatial analysis in the 78 included articles (e.g., buffers around the infected households, census tracts, health regions, small and large administrative areas), which varied according to authors’ choices, data sources and availability. Dengue cases and landscape factors are often aggregated to an administrative level or census tracts to perform comparisons with socio-economic or demographic datasets. When considering an administrative area, there is a risk of disruption with dengue transmission mechanisms as it does not represent a spatial homogeneous area for vector ecology or the human exposures to Aedes bites. According to the specific objectives and time period of the study, the use of an administrative unit as an analysis area could be justified [70], but the inevitable simplification that occurs when attempting to model real-world phenomena should be considered and systematically discussed, independent of the type of spatial units or chosen methods [38].

6.3. Highlights and Perspectives to Improve the Frame of Urban Dengue-Landscape Relationships Studies

Our purpose was originally to identify studies based on remote sensing techniques to produce landscape factors, so we opened our search to all kinds of information sources, including survey questionnaire and GIS data. Such strategy is guided by the consideration of a holistic conceptual risk and vulnerability framework [71], to allow for the identification of new factors that would be potentially achievable by using remote sensing techniques. The main purpose was to identify what makes a given landscape “pathogenic” or not, in respect to dengue transmission [72]. We privileged a “Built City” approach, i.e. a city as a physical entity, [44], to avoid direct socio-economic considerations in landscape factors. Discursive links between dengue and poverty may have contributed to an inappropriate transfer of globally dominant dengue control strategies to non-poor local environment [73]. From this perspective, the quantification of human exposure to Aedes bites through salivary antibody-based biomarkers may be a promising method for estimating the influence of the bio-physical environment on human–Aedes contact [74]. Only two articles used landscape metrics to explore the impact of more in-depth ecological characteristics of an urban landscape on dengue transmission (ids: 57, 69). Landscape metrics have been separately applied to malaria transmission for assessing the influence of landscape factors relative to exposure risk [75,76]. The representativeness of sampling strategies during intra-urban dengue seroprevalence surveys may be improved by the use of GIS and remote sensing techniques ([77], e.g., urban environmental clustering and Aedes density); ([78], e.g., Urban typology) and help to objectify the choice of geographical units ([70], e.g., criteria of intra-unit homogeneity, areal and population size, compactness); ([71,79], e.g., Concept of integrated geons). Public health services could also benefit from original visualization techniques to map metrics or indexes related to dengue vectors or occurrences ([80], e.g., Ring mapping).
Id 22 highlighted the importance of human movement, and time spent in places at various scale in human exposition and DENV spreading. Id 37 showed that high-density road network is an important factor to the direction and scale of dengue epidemic, and that the dengue cases were mainly concentrated in the vicinity of narrow roads. Id 63 insisted on the “forest fire” signature of DENV epidemiology in the context of Dehli (India), while id 61 refers to a “silent epidemic in a complex urban area” in the context of Salvador (Brazil), where “high rates of transmission were observed in all studied areas, from the highest to the lowest socio-economic status.” Many authors referred to the necessity of an improvement in the individual geolocalisation capacity to estimate human mobility patterns, since an “importation of infected individuals into a frequented area could lead to a local foci of infection included with a low Aedes density”. Id 12 considered that “dengue transmission occurs, not at a fixed entomologic figure/quantity but rather at a variable level based on numerous factors including seroprevalence, mosquito density and climate.” Entomological indices may be good proxy of DENV occurrences at household-level (ids: 4, 34, 68, 75), but seem less significant when aggregated at coarser resolutions (ids: 6, 26, 28, 59), or when considering only larvae (id: 5). Some important data relative to vector borne diseases are exclusively accessible by field survey, e.g., type of material construction or screens on windows, but their knowledge do not seem so critical in the case of Aedes borne disease (ids: 4, 13, 70, 73). Many survey questionnaires based studies confirmed the large inadequacy of remote sensing techniques to properly identify potential dengue risk factors in link with Aedes habitats, characterized by a fine or micro-scale level: empty houses, sewage system, garbage system, street drainage, water pumps, water containers, open sewers, tyres, water puddle, ditches, cans (ids: 8, 9, 17, 18, 33, 65, 68, 74). However, remote sensing techniques should be now in capacity to provide more than land cover information, and could help to systematically inform on land use and urban typology, without the need of a questionnaire, as (i) proxies of human presence and activity, or as (ii) macro-scale hotspot proxies of Aedes habitats e.g., cemeteries (id: 17), construction site (id: 36), vegetation height (ids: 26, 73), shade (ids: 26, 73), or roof shape (id: 54). Based on sound statistical machine learning, such complex urban typology could be labeled from space at neighborhood or small administrative level: informal settlement areas (ids: 23, 28, 49), urban villages (52), quality of neighborhood index (ids: 32, 52), or multiple association of urban functions (ids: 18, 19, 23, 35, 57), especially if completed by building height (ids: 58, 46, 75). Such improvement could help to explicit the multiscale geographical framework where DENV transmission occurs as a result of a multifactorial process. At the same time, remote sensing products could help to guide the questionnaire during the field survey, while GIS provide the framework to combine all spatialized information and performs geo-analysis (id: 10). Although remotely sensed radiometric measures like NDVI or LST could provide conflicting conclusions (ids: 3, 10, 42, 44, 50, 69), their use in a sound methodological framework could be of some interest, especially when available at higher resolutions. Digital archiving in GIS context of geocoded and confirmed dengue cases should help to easily inform on historical dengue risks areas (id: 35). Such digital layers could provide an interesting proxy of dengue transmission patterns when DENV-serotype is known.
As was apparent during this review, we were not able to identify a set of land cover and land use classes unequivocally related to dengue risk factors. This is consistent with the fact that reliable predictors for dengue have not yet been established in the literature [36], and the Aedes presence and density are not sufficient to determine dengue epidemics [13], which justifies the scope of this review, centering on dengue cases. DENV transmission is complex, and the relationship between vector density and risk is not static nor adequately characterized through periodic entomological surveillance [81]. However, even if Aedes indicators serve as surrogates of true exposure [81], vector control will remain the primary prevention strategy in most dengue endemic settings [1], including when an effective dengue virus (DENV) vaccine would become commercially available [18]. To better target surveillance programs, effective control of Aedes could benefit from available evidence-based guidance by considering an Integrated Aedes Management framework ([82,83], IAM).
Some specific factors are unachievable using remote sensing techniques due to their limited spatial dimension and should continue to be acquired by field and entomological surveys, e.g., decimetric spatial resolution for breeding sites or for gutter rain, or because they are hidden from the sensor perspective. However, building detection remains a central task as it allows human presence and density to be identified, and is constrained geographically to the urban area. Building environment, e.g., vegetation or water areas, is also of interest since it could influence Aedes ecology or human activities. Building function, e.g., residential or commercial, can give important information about human activities and human presence related to time. Road and transport networks may also constraint Aedes and DEN virus diffusion, and can be related to patterns of human commuting. Land use data related to human movement and places visit frequency should help in reducing the difficulty of acquiring detailed knowledge about “the non-random nature of encounters” [8]. In this way, urban mapping, particularly by including land use, could provide the geographical context in which, with adequate parameters that compensate for missing information, dengue-related processes could be modelled ([36], Review on modeling tools for dengue risk mapping; [84,85,86], Getis-Ord Gi in GIS context; [87,88,89], Spatial Mechanistic Modeling of Aedes Mosquito Vectors; [90], Spatial agent-based simulation model of the dengue vector Aedes; [91], Environmental hazard index mapping methodology of Aedes aegypti; [92], Modeling Dengue vector population using remotely sensed data and machine learning; [93], Comparison of stochastic and deterministic frameworks in dengue modelling).
To improve surveillance and monitor of dengue occurrences and Aedes mosquitoes, intercomparison model projects could help to identify the most general and efficient models considering various geographical contexts and data set: ([94], e.g., Airborne spread of foot-and-mouth disease – Model intercomparison; https://www.theia-land.fr/en/anisette-tracking-mosquitoes-that-carry-disease/, e.g., Inter-Site Analysis: Evaluation of Remote Sensing as a predictive tool for the surveillance and control of diseases caused by mosquito, and future impacts of climate and/or land use changes may also be considered; [95], e.g., Malaria and climate; [17,23,96], e.g., Urbanization). Review of literature are also needed to update the ever-increasing output of scientific publications, and lead to new synthetic insights ([97]; [10], e.g., Determinants of Aedes Mosquito Habitat for Risk Mapping, [98], e.g., New frontiers for environmental epidemiology in a changing world, [99], e.g., Current challenges for dengue; [100], e.g., Mosquito-Borne Diseases: Advances in Modelling Climate-Change Impacts; [101], e.g., A 10 years view of scientific literature on Aedes aegypti; [102], e.g., Satellite Earth Observation Data in Epidemiological Modeling).
The potential of satellite images and remote sensing techniques should continue to be explored. As mentioned in this review, the images used often corresponded to old missions or end-of-life satellite sensors, and methodologies should consider more state-of-the-art-approaches:
  • the native pixel resolutions were often aggregated at a coarser resolution during the mapping production (Figure 11). Recent satellite missions should bring greater possibilities to fit spatial resolution and temporal windows over urban areas, for example the Copernicus Sentinel program ([103], Monitoring Urban Areas with Sentinel-2A Data), or on demand very high-resolution sensors ([104], Pléiades satellite potential for urban tree mapping);
  • image processing was previously limited to spectral indices (NDVI, VFC), or some supervised pixel-based classifications mostly based on the maximum likelihood algorithm (ids: 57, 69, 70, 71). Only one study considered object-based classification for building extraction purposes (id: 77). Such approaches could benefit from methodological advances, especially from the urban mapping community—([105], Comparison of Deep Neural Networks, Ensemble Classifiers, and Support Vector Machine Algorithms) ([106], “Compared with the traditional rule-based and ML [Machine Learning] methods, the DL [Deep learning]-based classification method has significant advantages in terms of classification accuracy, especially in complex urban areas”) ([47], Google Earth Engine Platform), ([107], VHR and landscape-structure heterogeneity), ([108], Urban change detection), ([109], Street-level imageries) ([110], VHR images and slums detection);
  • two studies have exploited the thermal sensors from Landsat-TM and MODIS instruments, and used them to retrieve land surface temperature (LST) parameters (ids: 3, 19). This is particularly useful to detect urban heat islands that could indicate improved conditions for Aedes viability and dengue virus replication, due to the potentially amplified higher temperatures (typically greater than 30 C), and resulting in a reduction of the extrinsic incubation period from 12–14 days to 7 days ([111], id: 3). New thermal sensors with higher spatial resolution may promote consideration of thermal sensors, such as the CNES-TRISHNA mission [112,113], even if methodological issues remain: that is, hotspot effects, separation of temperature and emissivity parameter.
  • dengue is often spread in tropical or subtropical regions, where the presence of clouds and cloud shadows result in missing data in optical images. Synthetic aperture radar SAR images could penetrate such barriers and might be combined with optical sensors for overcoming this issue. Such an approach to optical and SAR fusion has been applied in the studies of malaria [114,115];
  • very high resolution imagery may be more suitable for extracting the direct dengue-related landscape factors, such as (i) the type of vegetation near human settlements [104,116] (ii) the footprint of built-up areas [46,117], and (iii) land use types, such as slum areas [118,119];
  • from high-resolution built-up area detection, population growth estimation due to urbanization could be assessed, improving the estimation of census and incidence rates [120,121]. In this regard, only one article proposed a proxy for a spatially-corrected population density by digitizing and excluding inhabited areas (id: 24). To improve the population density assessment, cities should be considered in their verticality and volume, through the use of a digital height model, potentially generated from unmanned or satellite remote sensing stereo imagery [122,123,124];
  • although we did not consider meteorological factors here, surface air temperature or soil moisture, traditionally measured by in situ weather stations, could be derived from satellite passive microwave radiometry [102,125].
The temporal dimension remains largely absent in the spatio-temporal relationship studies of this review. Populations commute, as well as mosquitoes. If a decrease in mean distance between dengue cases may generally correlates with activity, and could lead up to an outbreak, a decrease in temporal distance between dengue cases may increase geographic spread of the disease [126]. Landscape changes associated with human mobility, like transportation infrastructure changes, may create favorable conditions for the establishment of dengue virus [127]. However, relationship investigations are usually done under a stationary analysis scheme, and the mapping of dengue patterns often ignore “temporal kinetics” (id: 32). A complementary approach to this static view should be to consider human mobility in relation to Aedes-bites exposure, and not only to mosquito dispersal associated with its flight, as this former could affect significantly the spread of infection [128]. Adams and Kapan [129] enhanced the fact that hubs and reservoirs of dengue infection can be places people visit frequently but briefly. Authors from id 74 found that most of the space-time distances of non-commuting dengue cases clustered within 100 m and one week, whereas commuting cases clustered within 2 to 4 km and one to five weeks. Human commuting patterns may be estimated through the use of GPS data-logger (id: 22) [130] or regularly logged cellphone tracking data [131], which could be in the next decade generalized in the so-called Smart City model ([132] Real Time Health Monitoring, [133] Smart Health care Internet of Things and Aedes monitoring, [134] Geospatial artificial intelligence).

7. Conclusions

We propose here a mapping review which focuses on the landscape factors potentially related to urban dengue transmission. By analysing the 78 included articles that satisfied these criteria, we found that the landscape mapping linked to human dengue infection was mainly guided by (i) vector ecology-based considerations through vegetation and water surface mapping and (ii) human presence and activities deducted from the settlement typology.
We extracted each of the specific landscape features that have been assessed in the context of DENV transmission. We proposed a systematic three-valued interpretation of the relationships performed between each landscape factors and dengue occurrences, and provided a representation in a graphical way according to the considered spatial scale of the studies. Even if some characteristics appear essential, as human density and movement pattern, or the presence of a minimum vegetation in the surrounding, considering only one landscape factor at a time should be avoided, as we highlighted the complexity of the “pathogenic landscape” associated to dengue transmission. In a broad and simplified approach, relevant landscape is characterized by a mix of residential and highly frequented areas, associated to multi-scale human mobility, with an entomological thresholds that can be low. From a remote sensing perspective, there is a need to identify land uses more than solely land covers to characterize more complex urban environment: informal settlement, building typology, transportation network, and consider the vertical dimension of the city. Up to now, these kinds of information have been more often retrieved from costly and time-consuming survey questionnaires than from automatic remotely-sensed approaches. To provide a realistic geographical context in dengue modelling and to take into account the complexity and the multi-factorial nature of DENV transmission in tropical environments, remote sensing approaches need to be promoted through the use of recent HR and VHR sensors such as, Copernicus (Sentinel) or Orfeo (Pleiades) programs, a combination of optical, including stereo, and RADAR approaches, and state-of-the-art image processing algorithms, including deep learning techniques when possible. A strengthening of relations between environmental epidemiology and urban mapping communities should help to standardize the mapping of the urban typology of interest, and therefore enable better assessment of the influence on dengue transmission.
As integrated approach combining remote sensing, GIS, and field survey preferable when possible, since health data and entomological observation availability and quality would probably remain the main limiting factors if landscape and urban typology mapping, including human movement pattern, continue to improve. Due to the silent characteristics of DENV presence within the city, dengue control still requires above all an active search and an early detection of new cases, including serotype detection, associated to an entomological control at fine scale involving both citizen and health agencies.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/6/932/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: R.M., Z.L., N.D., H.G.; Methodology, formal analysis, software use: R.M.; Writing—review and editing: R.M., Z.L., T.C., E.R., N.D., M.M., L.X., J.G., P.H., A.T., L.D., J.-F.F., J.J.C., B.D., V.H.; Supervision and funding acquisition: N.D., Z.L. and P.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No.: 41801336). This research was also partially supported by a denotion from Delos Living LLC to Tsinghua University, and by the APUREZA project (CNES-TOSCA 2016–2018 call).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the members of the work-groups from the Environment, Societies and Health Risks inter-disciplinary (ESoR, http://www.espace-dev.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37&Itemid=193), and from the ANalyse Inter-Site CNES-TOSCA project (ANISETTE, https://anisette.cirad.fr/), particularly Eric Daudé and Renaud Misslin, for the constructive discussions that considerably enriched the paper. We also thank the administrative and technical supports.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A. Raw Descriptive Tables of the 58 Included Articles

Appendix A.1. Identification and Localization Table of the 58 Included Articles

Table A1. Extraction of the publication meta-data (first author, date of publication, title, name of the journal), and description of the geographical contexts (country, city, geographical unit) of the 78 included studies.
Table A1. Extraction of the publication meta-data (first author, date of publication, title, name of the journal), and description of the geographical contexts (country, city, geographical unit) of the 78 included studies.
ID [Ref.]Publication Meta-DataGeographical Context
First AuthorDateTitleJournalCountryCityGeographic Units of Spatial Analysis
1 [135]Ali2003Use of a geographic information system for defininThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygieneBangladeshDhaka8820
Households
(within 90 wards)
2 [136]Al-Raddadi2019Seroprevalence of dengue fever and the associatedActa TropicaSaudi Arabia4 cities:Makkah,
Al Madinah,
Jeddah, and Jizan
6397
Households
3 [137]Araujo2015Sao Paulo urban heat islands have a higher incidence of dengue than other urban areasThe Brazilian Journal of Infectious DiseasesBrazilSao PauloDistricts
4 [138]Ashford2003Outbreak of dengue fever in Palau, western pacific: risk factors for infectionThe American Journal of Tropical Medicine and HygienePalau5 hamlets of Palau(270)
Households
Koror and five hamlets of Palau(189 of 865)
Households
5 [139]Barbosa2010Spatial Distribution of the Risk of Dengue and the Entomological Indicators in Sumaré, State of Sao Paulo, BrazilRevista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina TropicalBrazilTupaNeighborhoods
6 [140]Barbosa2014Spatial Distribution of the Risk of Dengue and the Entomological Indicators in Sumaré, State of São Paulo, BrazilPLOS Neglected Tropical DiseasesBrazilSumare Sao Paulo stateNeighborhoods
7 [141]Barrera2000Estratificación de una ciudad hiperendémica en dengue hemorrágicoRevista Panamericana de Salud PúblicaVenezuelaMaraquay(349)
Neighborhoods
8 [142]Braga2010Seroprevalence and risk factors for dengue infection in socio-economically distinct areas of Recife, BrazilActa TropicaBrazilRecifeHouseholds
9 [143]Brunkard2007Dengue Fever Seroprevalence and Risk Factors, Texas–Mexico Border, 2004Emerging Infectious DiseasesUSA
Mexico
Brownsville, Texas
Matamoros,
Tamaulipas
(300)
Households
Neighborhoods
10 [144]Cao2017Individual and Interactive Effects of Socio-Ecological Factors on Dengue Fever at Fine Spatial Scale: A Geographical Detector-Based AnalysisInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthChinaGuangzhou(167)
Townships-streets
11 [145]Carbajo2018The largest dengue outbreak in Argentina and spatial analyses of dengue cases in relation to a control program in a district with sylvan and urban environmentsAsian Pacific Journal of Tropical MedicineArgentinaTigreCensus tracts
12 [146]Chadee2009Dengue cases and Aedes aegypti indices in TrinidadActa TropicaTrinidadCounty Victoria(50)
Households
13 [147]Chen2016Who Is Vulnerable to Dengue Fever? A Community Survey of the 2014 Outbreak in Guangzhou, ChinaInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthChinaGuangzhouHouseholds
14 [148]Chen2019Spatiotemporal Transmission Patterns and Determinants of dengue fever: a case study of Guangzhou, ChinaInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthChinaGuangzhou cityGrid-level 1km
15 [149]Chiu2014A Probabilistic Spatial Dengue Fever Risk Assessment by a Threshold-Based-Quantile Regression MethodPLoS ONEChinaKaohsiung
Fongshan
Li
(Smallest
Administrative
Unit)
16 [150]Chuang2018Epidemiological Characteristics and Space-Time Analysis of the 2015 Dengue Outbreak in the Metropolitan Region of Tainan City, TaiwanInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthChinaTainnanBSA, village
(Small
Admnistrative newline Unit)
17 [151]Delmelle2016A spatial model of socioeconomic and environmental determinants of dengue fever in Cali, ColombiaActa TropicaColombiaCali(323)
Neighborhoods
18 [152]De Mattos2007Spatial Vulnerability to Dengue in a Brazilian Urban Area During a 7-Year SurveillanceJournal of Urban HealthBrazilBelo
Horizonte
(2548)
census tracts
19 [153]Dom2013Coupling of remote sensing data and environmental-related parameters for dengue transmission risk assessment in Subang Jaya, MalaysiaGeocarto InternationalMalaysiaSubang
Jaya
Locality
(Small
Admnistrative Unit)
20 [154]Ellis2015A Household Serosurvey to Estimate the Magnitude of a Dengue Outbreak in Mombasa, Kenya, 2013PLOS Neglected Tropical DiseasesKenyaMonbasa(701)
Households
21 [155]Escobar-Mesa2003Determinantes de la transmisión de dengue en Veracruz: un abordaje ecológico para su controlSalud Pública de MéxicoMexicoVeracruz(1249)
Localities
22 [156]Falcon-Lezama2017Analysis of spatial mobility in subjects from a Dengue endemic urban locality in Morelos State, MexicoPloS oneMexicoAxochiapan cityTrajectory
in and out of the city
23 [157]Garcia2011An examination of the spatial factors of dengue cases in Quezon City, Philippines A Geographic Information-System GLS based approach 2005 2008Acta Medica PhilippinaPhilippinesQuezonBarrangay
(Small
Admnistrative Unit)
24 [158]Hapuarachchi2016Epidemic resurgence of dengue fever in Singapore in 2013–2014: A virological and entomological perspectiveBMC Infectious DiseasesSingaporeSingapore150 m buffer around clusterized cases
25 [159]Hayes2003Risk factors for infection during a severe dengue outbreak in el Salvador in 2000The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and HygieneSalvadorAguilares
(Las Pampitas)
(106) Households
26 [160]Hayes2006Risk factors for infection during a dengue-1 outbreak in Maui, Hawaii, 2001Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and HygieneUSAHawaii
Hana
Households
27 [161]Heukelbach2001Risk factors associated with an outbreak of dengue fever in a favela in Fortaleza, north-east BrazilTropical Medicine & International HealthBrazilFortaleza
Favela
Serviluz
Self-defined
districts
28 [162]Honorio2009Spatial Evaluation and Modeling of Dengue Seroprevalence and Vector Density in Rio de Janeiro, BrazilPLoS Neglected Tropical DiseasesBrazilRio de Janeiro(3)
Neighborhoods
29 [163]Huang2018Spatial Clustering of Dengue Fever Incidence and Incidence and its association with surrounding greenessInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthChinaTainan KaohsiungDistricts
30 [164]Kennesson2019Social-ecological factors and preventive actions decrease the risk of dengue infectionPLOS Neglected Tropical DiseasesEcuadorMachalaHouseholds
31 [165]Kesetyaningsi2018Determination of environmental factors affecting dengue incidence in Sleman DistrictAfrican Journal of Infectious DiseasesIndonesiaSleman District200 m buffer
32 [166]Khormi2011Modeling dengue fever risk based on socioeconomic parameters, nationality and age groups: GIS and remote sensing based case studyScience of The Total EnvironmentSaudiArabiaJeddah(111)
Districts
33 [167]Kim2015Role of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus during the 2011 dengue fever epidemics in Hanoi, VietnamAsian Pacific Journal of Tropical MedicineVietnamHanoi(8)
Districts
(1200) 50 m-buffers around Households
34 [168]Koopman1991Determinants and Predictors of Dengue Infection in MexicoAmerican Journal of EpidemiologyMexico70 localities
under 50,000 inhabitants
(3408)
Households
35 [169]Koyadun2012Ecologic and Sociodemographic Risk Determinants for Dengue Transmission in Urban Areas in ThailandInterdisciplinary Perspectives on Infectious DiseasesThailandChachoengsao’s
province cities
(1200)
Households
considering (4) ecotypes
36 [170]Li2013Abiotic Determinants to the Spatial Dynamics of Dengue Fever in GuangzhouAsia Pacific Journal of Public HealthChinaGuangzhou(12)
Districts
37 [171]Li2018Spatiotemporal responses of dengue fever transmission to the road network in an urban areaActa TropicaChinaGuangzhou Fushan500 m distance from roads
38 [172]Lippi2018The social and spatial ecology of dengue presence and burden during an outbreak in Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2012International Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthEcuadorGuayaquilCensus
tract
39 [173]Liu2018Dynamic spatiotemporal analysis of indigenous dengue fever at street-level in Guangzhou city, ChinaPLOS Neglected Tropical DiseasesChinaGuangzhouStreet-level
40 [174]Mahmood2019Spatiotemporal analysis of dengue outbreaks in Samanabad town, Lahore metropolitan area, using geospatial techniquesEnvironmental Monitoring and AssessmentPakistanSamanabadUnion Council
41 [175]Mala2019Implications of meteorological and physiographical parameters on dengue fever occurrences in DelhiScience of The Total EnvironmentIndiaDelhi cityCity
42 [176]Martinez2017Relative risk estimation of dengue disease at small spatial scaleInternational Journal of Health GeographicsColombiaBucaramanga(293)
Census tracts
43 [177]McBride1998Determinants of dengue 2 infection among residents of Charters Towers, Queensland, AustraliaAmerican journal of epidemiologyAustraliaCharters Towers1000
Households
44 [178]Mena2011Factores asociados con la incidencia de dengue en Costa RicaRevista Panamericana de Salud PúblicaCosta RicaVarious
cities
(81)
Cantones
45 [179]Meza-Ballesta2014The influence of climate and vegetation cover on the occurrence of dengue cases (2001-2010)Revista de Salud PúblicaColombiaVarious
cities
(30) Municipios
46 [180]Mondini2008Spatial correlation of incidence of dengue with socioeconomic, demographic and environmental variables in a Brazilian cityScience of The Total EnvironmentBrazilSao Jose
do Rio Preto
Census tract
47 [181]Ogashawara2019Spatial-Temporal Assessment of Environmental Factors related to dengue outbreaks in Sao Paulo, BrazilGeoHealthBrazilSao PauloDistrict-level
48 [182]Pessanha2010Dengue em três distritos sanitários de Belo Horizonte, Brasil: inquérito soroepidemiológico de base populacional, 2006 a 2007Revista Panamericana de Salud PúblicaBrazilBelo HorizonteHouseholds
49 [183]Prayitno2017Dengue seroprevalence and force of primary infection in a representative population of urban dwelling Indonesian childrenPLOS Neglected Tropical DiseasesIndonesia26 citiesNeighborhoods
50 [184]Qi2015The Effects of Socioeconomic and Environmental Factors on the Incidence of Dengue Fever in the Pearl River Delta, China, 2013PLoS neglected tropical diseasesChina7 mains cities
of Pearl River Delta,
Guangdong
(402)
streets
and towns
51 [185]Qu2018Effects of socio-economic and environmental factorGeospatial HealthChinaGuangzhou cityTownship-level
52 [186]Reiter2003Texas Lifestyle Limits Transmission of Dengue VirusEmerging Infectious DiseasesUSA-MexicoLaredo,
Texas
Nuevo Laredo
Taumalipas
(622)
Households
53 [187]Ren2019Urban villages as transfer stations for dengue fever epidemic: a case study in the Guangzhou, ChinaEmerging Infectious DiseasesChinaGuangzhou city1 km square grid
54 [188]Rinawan2015Pitch and Flat Roof Factors’ Association with Spatiotemporal Patterns of Dengue Disease Analysed Using Pan-Sharpened Worldview 2 ImageryISPRS International Journal of Geo-InformationIndonesiaBandungBuffer 50 m
55 [189]Rodriguez1995Risk Factors for Dengue Infection during an Outbreak in Yanes, Puerto Rico in 1991The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and HygienePuerto RicoYanes
(Florida)
65 households
56 [190]Rotela2007Space–time analysis of the dengue spreading dynamics in the 2004 Tartagal outbreak, Northern ArgentinaActa TropicaArgentinaTartagalResidential
block
addresses
57 [191]Sarfraz2014Near real-time characterisation of urban environments: a holistic approach for monitoring dengue fever risk areasInternational Journal of Digital EarthThailandMuangBuffer 200 m
58 [192]Seidahmed2018Patterns of Urban Housing Shape Dengue Distribution in Singapore at Neighborhood and Country ScalesGeoHealthSingaporeSingapore
Geylang
200 m-grid
1 km-block
59 [193]Stewart-Ibarra2014Spatiotemporal clustering, climate periodicity, and social-ecological risk factors for dengue during an outbreak in Machala, Ecuador, in 2010BMC Infectious DiseasesEcuadorMachala(253)
Neighborhoods
60 [194]Sulaiman1996Relationship between Breteau and house indices and cases of dengue/dengue hemorrhagic fever in Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaJournal of the American Mosquito Control AssociationMalaysiaKuala Lumpur6 zones of
1 million inhabitants
61 [195]Teixera2002Dynamics of dengue virus circulation: a silent epidemic in a complex urban areaTropical Medicine & International HealthBrazilSalvador(30)
Neighborhoods
62 [196]Teixera2008Socio-demographic factors and the dengue fever epidemic in 2002 in the State of Rio de Janeiro, BrazilCadernos de Saúde PúblicaBrazilRio state(90)
Municipios
63 [197]Telle2016The Spread of Dengue in an Endemic Urban Milieu–The Case of Delhi, IndiaPLOS ONEIndiaDehli(1280)
Colonies
64 [198]Teurlai2015Socio-economic and Climate Factors Associated with Dengue Fever Spatial Heterogeneity: A Worked Example in New CaledoniaPLOS Neglected Tropical DiseasesNew Caled.Various citiesCity
65 [199]Thammapolo2008Environmental factors and incidence of dengue fever and dengue haemorrhagic fever in an urban area, Southern ThailandEpidemiology and InfectionThailandSongkhlaEnumeration district
66 [200]Tian2016Surface water areas significantly impacted 2014 dengue outbreaks in Guangzhou, ChinaEnvironmental ResearchChinaGuangzhouCity
67 [201]Tiong2015Evaluation of land cover and prevalence of dengue in MalaysiaTropical BiomedicineMalaysia15 citiesBuffer 10 m
68 [202]Toan2014Risk factors associated with an outbreak of dengue fever/dengue haemorrhagic fever in Hanoi, VietnamEpidemiology & InfectionVietnamHanoi(73)
Households
69 [203]Troyo2009Urban structure and dengue incidence in Puntarenas, Costa RicaSingapore Journal of Tropical GeographyCosta RicaPunta-renasHealth region
70 [204]Van Benthem2005Spatial patterns of and risk factors for seropositivity for dengue infectionThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygieneThailand(Ban Pa Nai
Ban Pang)
Mae Hia
Buffer 200 m
71 [205]Vanwambeke2006Multi-level analyses of spatial and temporal determinants for dengue infectionInternational Journal of Health GeographicsThailand(Ban Pa Nai
Ban Pang)
Mae Hia
Buffer 200 m
72 [206]Wanti2019Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever and House Conditions in Kupang City, East Nusa Tenggara ProvinceKesmas: National Public Health JournalIndonesiaKupangHouseholds
73 [207]Waterman1985Dengue Transmission in Two Puerto Rican Communities in 1982The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and HygienePuerto RicoManati
Salinas
communities
(60)
blocks of
6 households
74 [208]Wen2012Population Movement and Vector-Borne Disease Transmission: Differentiating Spatial—Temporal Diffusion Patterns of Commuting and Noncommuting Dengue CasesAnnals of the Association of American GeographersChinaTainan city266
“Villages”
(smallest administrative division)
75 [209]Wong2014Community Knowledge, Health Beliefs, Practices and Experiences Related to Dengue Fever and Its Association with IgG SeropositivityPLOS Neglected Tropical DiseasesMalaysiaVarious cities1400
Households
at 3 km of the schools
76 [210]Yue2018Spatial analysis of dengue fever and exploration of its environmental and socio-economic risk factors using ordinary least squaresInternational Journal of Infectious DiseasesChinaGuangzhou city1 km square Grid
77 [211]Yung2016Epidemiological risk factors for adult dengue in Singapore: an 8-year nested test negative case control studyBMC Infectious DiseasesSingaporeSingaporeHouseholds
78 [212]Zellweger2017Socioeconomic and environmental determinants of dengue transmission in an urban setting: An ecological study in Nouméa, New CaledoniaPLOS Neglected Tropical DiseasesNew
Caledonia
New
Noumea
(36)
Neighborhoods

Appendix A.2. Epidemiological Characteristics and Vectors Mention (M) or Observation (O) in the 58 Included Articles

Table A2. Data extracted from the 78 articles on the epidemiological context (time-span of the outbreak or of the serosurvey, data provider, method used to identify dengue virus, number of cases ([n]) or incidence (I) or prevalence (P), spatial distribution of the dengue occurrences). In last column, we indicate if vectors are only mentioned (M) or observed (O) in the study.
Table A2. Data extracted from the 78 articles on the epidemiological context (time-span of the outbreak or of the serosurvey, data provider, method used to identify dengue virus, number of cases ([n]) or incidence (I) or prevalence (P), spatial distribution of the dengue occurrences). In last column, we indicate if vectors are only mentioned (M) or observed (O) in the study.
ID [Ref.]Epidemiological Context
Start–End YearsDATA SourceDiagnostic MethodDENV-TypeNumber of CasesSpatial
Variation
Vectors Mention
1 [135]2000Self-reported dengue
cases
NANANAClustered in the southern part
(hospitals location)
Aedes aegypti and Aedes Albopictus (O)
2 [136]Sep 2016–Jan 2017Sero-prevalence
survey
IgG (ELISA)NA% by cityNAMosquitoes (M)
3 [137]2010–2011Passive notification
(COVISA)
IgG (ELISA)NAN=7415HeterogeneousAedes aegypti (M)
4 [138]1995Passive notification
(Palau Hospital)
Clinical and IgM and IgGNAN = 254HeterogeneousAedes aegypti albopictus, and hensilli (O)
Jan–Jun 1995Passive notification (PHD)
and cross-survey
IgM (ELISA) and Virus isolationN = 817
P = 75%
5 [139]Jan–2004–Dec–2007Passive notification (PCD)Clinical and Lab. confirmedNAI = 281 per 100,000NAAedes aegypti (O)
6 [140]Jan–Sep–2011Passive notification (SINAN)Clinical and Lab. confirmedDENV-1 DENV-2
DENV-3
N = 195HeterogeneousAedes aegypti (O)
7 [141]1993–1998Sero-incidenceClinical signsNAN = 10,576
N = 2593 (DHF) N = 8 (Death)
Observed PatternsAedes aegypti (M)
8 [142]2005–2006Sero-prevalence surveyIgG
(ELISA)
NAP = 91% P = 87%
P = 74%
Socio-eco stratifiedAedes aegypti (M)
9 [143]Oct–Nov 2004Sero-prevalence surveyDouble IgM-IgG (ELISA), and PRNTDENV-2
DENV-1
N = 6 (Recent), N = 119 (Past)
N = 22 (Recent), and N = 235 (Past)
NAAedes aegypti, albopictus, Culex quinque, fasciatus (O)
10 [144]2014Passive notification
(CDCP)
Clinical, IgM,
and PCR
NAN = 37,3224 clusters
1 Hotspot
3 cold spots
(Moran’s I)
Aedes albopictus (aegypti) (M)
11 [145]2016Passive notification
(CDCP)
Ns1
IgM
NAN = 83MildAedes aegypti (albopictus) (M)
12 [146]2003–2004Sero-prevalenceClinical signs
IgM
Seroconversion
NAN = 33NAAedes agypti (O)
13 [147]Jul–Aug 2014Passive notification
(NNIDRIS)
Clinical
IgG
PCR
NAN = 165NAAedes albopictus (aegypti) (M)
14 [148]Jan–Dec 2014Passive notification China CDCClinical or laboratory diagnosisNA37 386Spatially clusted in central districtsAedes (M)
15 [149]2004–2011Passive notification
(CDC)
IgMNANAHeterogeneousAedes aegypti (albopictus) (M)
16 [150]2015Passive notification
(CDC)
IgMNAN = 22,740
P = 12.06 per 1000
3 Clusters
(Moran’s I)
Aedes aegypti
and albopictus (M)
17 [151]2010Passive notification
(SIVIGILA)
Clinical signsNAN = 92873 Clusters
Heterogeneous
(Moran’s I)
Aedes aegypti (M)
18 [152]1996–2002Passive
notification
(SINAN) (SISVE)
ClinicalNAN = 89,607HeterogeneousAedes aegypti (M)
19 [153]2006–2010Passive
notification
(DHO) (SJMC)
NANANA5 HotspotsAedes (aegypti) (M)
20 [154]3–11 May 2013Sero-incidenceIgM
RT-PCR
DENV-1
DENV-2
DENV-3
N = 210 of 1500No clusteringAedes aegypti (M)
21 [155]1995–1998Passive notification
(IPEEDP)
NADENV-3
and co-circulation
N = 26,423
I = 112.7 per
100,000 (1997)
HeterogeneousAedes aegypti (M)
22 [156]May-Sep 2012Sero-prevalence surveyIgM or IgG capture ELISANA37 38642 cases, 42 intradomestic, and 42 population controlsAedes (M)
23 [157]2005–2008Passive notification
(DOH)
NANAN = 8812HeterogeneousAedes (M)
24 [158]2013–2014Passive notification
(MOH)
Clinical
NS1 or
RNA-PCR
DENV-1
(dominant)
and
DENV-2
N = 22,170
I = 410 (2013)
N = 18,338
I = 335 (2014)
NAAedes aegypti (albopictus) (O)
25 [159]18–19 Aug 2000Primo and secondary Sero-incidenceIgM
IgG
DENV-2I = 98
per 1000
NAAedes (O)
26 [160]Oct 2001Sero-incidenceClinical
IgM
IgG
DENV-1I = 389 per 1000Confined
area
Aedes albopictus (O)
27 [161]1 Jun–31 Jul 1999Passive notification
(PHCC)
Clinical
IgM
DENV-1
DENV-2
N = 34 clinical
N = 16 IgM
NAAedes aegypti (M)
28 [162]Jul–Nov 2007
Apr 2008
Sero-prevalence
and recent cases
survey
Clinical
IgM
IgG
DENV-2NAHotspots
patterns
Aedes aegypti (albopictus) (O)
29 [163]2014–2015Passive notification Taiwan Centers for Disease Control (CDC)IgM, nucleotide sequence, viral isolationNA15 394 for 2014, 42 932 for 2015Hotspots of dengue epidemic in urban areasAedes aegypti and Ae. albopitus (M)
30 [164]Jan–Sep 2014, Mar–Jun 2015Sero-prevalenceRT-PCR, NS1 test, ELISA and IgMNA72HeterogeneousAedes aegypti (M)
31 [165]2008–2013Passive notification DF and DHF cases, HD of Sleman district, and PHCNANA1150Dengue incidents are clustered for each yearAedes aegypti (M)
32 [166]2006–2010Passive notification
(JHA)
ClinicalNANAHeterogeneousAedes aegypti (M)
33 [167]1 Aug–21 Dec 2011Passive notification
(NHTD)
Clinical signs
RT-PCR
DENV-2
DENV-1
N = 14024 infectious
foci
Aedes (O)
(95%) aegypti
(5%) albopictus
34 [168]March–Oct 1986National sero-prevalence surveyAntigens testNANA
(age < 25)
StratifiedAedes aegypti (O)
35 [169]Aug–Oct 2007Sero-incidence
(Hospital and PHO)
IgM,
IgG,
and clinical signs
NA1200NAAedes (aegypti) (M)
36 [170]May–Nov 2002Passive notification
(CDCPG)
NANAN = 10692 clustersAedes aegypti and albopictus (M)
37 [171]2014Passive notification China CDCNANA40 379Spatio-temporal dengue kernelsAedes aegypti (M)
38 [172]2012Passive notificationClinical signsNAP = ? per 10 5 Heterogeneous.Aedes aegypti (albopictus) (M)
39 [173]2006–2014Passive notification China CDCClinical signs, and lab. confirmedNANASpatio-temporal clusteringAedes albopictus (M)
40 [174]2012–2015Passive notification, the Punjab Health DepartmentNANA377 for 2012, 871 for 2013, 133 for 2014 and 49 for 2015NAAedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus (M)
41 [175]2006–2015The Health Department of Municipal Corporation of DelhiNANANANAAedesmosquitoes (M)
42 [176]2008–2015Passive notification
(SIVIGLIA)
Clinical signsNAN = 27,301
P = 1359 per 10 5
NAAedes aegypti (M)
43 [177]May–Sept 1995SerosuveyHemagglutination inhibition assay, Clark and CassalsDENV-2[n = 203]FociAedes aegypti (M)
44 [178]1999–2007Passive
notification
Ministerio de Salud
Clinical
and serologic
NAN = 137,719Heterogeneous.Aedes aegypti (M)
45 [179]2001–2010Passive notification
SIVIGILA
NANANANAAedes aegypti (M)
46 [180]1994–1998
1998–2002
Passive notification
A.L.
NANAN = 13,998Heterogeneous, clusters
(Moran’s I)
Aedes aegypti (M)
47 [181]2011–Aug 2017The State Secretariat of HealthNANAFrom 475 to 43,359 yearlyNAAedes aegypti (M)
48 [182]Jun–2006 Mars 2007Sero-prevalence
survey
SNNA709
11.9%
HeterogeneousNA
49 [183]Oct–Nov 2014Sero-prevalence
survey
IgG
ELISA
NAN = 3194
children
I = 69.4%
NAAedes (M)
50 [184]2013Passive
notification
China CDC
Clinic
IgG
PCR
NAI = 28,896 per 10 5 Highly clustered
Hot and cold spot
Aedes albopictus (aegypti) (M)
51 [185]2014Passive notification China CDCNANA37,380Space-time clusteringAedes albopictus (M)
52 [186]1999Sero-prevalenceIgMNAPrevalence(IgM)
P = 1.3%
(Laredo)
P = 16%
(Nuevo Laredo)
Across the boarderAedes aegypti (O)
53 [187]2012, 2013, 2014, and 2017Passive notification China CDCClinical or laboratory diagnosisNA36 344 for 2014, NA for other yearsSpatially clusted for the each yearAedes albopictus (M)
54 [188]Jan–Dec 2012Passive notificationNANA1058Hotspots
patterns
Aedes (M)
55 [189]Nov 1991Sero-incidence survey
(primary and secondary cases)
IgM
IgG
NAI = 18%
(N = 59 of 331)
AgglomeratedAedes aegypti (O)
56 [190]24 Jan 11 May 2004Passive notification
(SiNaVE)
PCR
IgM
IgG
NAN = 487Hot spotsAedes aegypti (M)
57 [191]2005–2010Passive notification
(DOH)
NANANAHeterogeneityAedes (M)
58 [192]2010–2015 (Geylang)
2013–2015 (Singapore)
Passive
notification
Ministry of Health
NADENV
1-2-3-4
N = 353
(Geylang,
2014–2015)
13
Clusters
in Geylang
(Moran’s Index)
Aedes aegypti and albopictus (O)
59 [193]2010Passive notification
(NIMH)
NADENV-1N = 2019
I = 84 per 10 5
Hotspots
patterns
Aedes aegypti (M)
60 [194]1994All hospitals notificationsHemagglutination inhibition test of Clarke and CasalsNA0 to 21 cases monthlyAll areasAedes aegypti and albopictus (O)
61 [195]May–Jun 1998Sero-prevalenceNADENV-1 and 2P = 68.7%NAAedes aegypti (O)
1998-1999Sero-incidenceI = 70.6%
62 [196]2002Passsive notification
SINAN
Clinical signsDENV-1
DENV-2
N = 368,460Highly
Heterogeneous
Aedes aegypti (M)
63 [197]2008–2009–2010Passive Delhi surveillance systemIgMNAN = 5998
(2010)
Spatio-temporal
clusters
Aedes aegypti (M)
64 [198]1995–2012Passive notification
(DASS)
Clinical signs
Lab. confirmed
NAN = 24,272Highly
Heterogeneous
Aedes aegypti (M)
65 [199]Jan–Dec 1998Passive notification
(Health Department)
WHO
criteria
NAN = 287
DH/DHF
Some points
clustering
(Moran’s I)
Aedes (O)
66 [200]1978–2014Passive notification
(NIDRS-CDC)
Phylo-genetic.DENV-1NANAAedes albopictus (O)
67 [201]2008–2009Sero-prevalence
survey
(Malaya University)
IgG
ELISA
NAN = 1,410
childrens
NAAedes (M)
68 [202]2009Passive notification
Hanoi Hospital
Clinical signsNAN = 73
DF/DHF
NAMosquitoes (O)
69 [203]2002Passive notification
(Health Department)
Clinical signsNAN = 1,434NAAedes aegypti (M)
2003N = 2017
70 [204]May–Sep 2001Sero-incidence
survey
IgM
(ELISA)
NAN = 1750
I = 6.5%
and I = 3.1%
One Sero-Positive
cluster
Aedes aegypti (M)
71 [205]2001–2003Sero-incidence
survey
IgMNANA4 clustersAedes (M)
72 [206]2011–2015Sero-prevalenceNANA240 DHF patient casesNAAedes (M)
73 [207]July 1982Sero-incidence
survey
HemagglutinationDENV-1
DENV-4
I = 35%
(Salinas)
I = 26% (Manati)
NAAedes aegypti (O)
74 [208]Jun 2007–Jan 2008Passive notification
(Taiwan-CDC)
Clinical signs
Lab. confirmed
NAN = 1403Various
space-time
clusters
Aedes aegypti and albopictus (M)
75 [209]Mar 2011–May 2012Sero-prevalence
survey
IgGNAN = 156
school children
(age 7–18)
3 clustersAedes mosquitoes (M)
76 [210]Jan–Dec 2014Passive notification China CDCClinical sign, lab. or viral isolationNA30,553High density in several districtsAedes albopictus (M)
77 [211]Apr 2005–Feb 2013Sero-incidence
survey
RT-PCR
IgM-IgG
conversion
DENV-1
DENV-2
suspected
N = 395 of
1703
(age ≥ 18)
Spatial
gradient
Aedes aegypti (M)
78 [212]Sep 2008–Aug 2009Passive notification
(DASS)
Clinical signs
IgM
PCR
NS1
analyses
(DENV-1)
DENV-4
N = 2310
I = 23.7 per
1000
North to South gradient
clusters
(Moran’s I)
Aedes aegypti (M)
2012–2013 DENV-1 N = 3369
I = 34.5 per 10 3
Widely homogeneous

Appendix A.3. Landscape Factor Production and Landscape-Dengue Relationships Table

Table A3. Data extracted from the 78 articles on the landscape factor production (type of source), on the landscape factor classification according to groups and subgroups, and on the dengue-landscape relationship (three-valued interpretation: +, −, or NS, and statistical method performed).
Table A3. Data extracted from the 78 articles on the landscape factor production (type of source), on the landscape factor classification according to groups and subgroups, and on the dengue-landscape relationship (three-valued interpretation: +, −, or NS, and statistical method performed).
ID [Ref.]Landscape Factors
Production
Dengue-Landscape
Relationship
Data SourceData GroupData Sub-GroupLandscape FactorsThree-Valued
Interpretation
Potential Proxy of
(at Unit Level)
Statistical
Method
1 [135]Survey questionnaireEntomological observationAedes albopictus larvae+Vector breeding sites
(at household level)
Correlation and
simple regression model
Aedes aegypti larvaeNS
GIS dataLand useInfrastructure levelProximity to the hospitals+Virus screening
(at wards level)
2 [136]Survey questionnaireHousing type and chracteristicsHousing typeVilla w/o gardenNSHuman–Vector encounter
(at household-level)
Odds ration
Multivariate logistic regression
Villa with gardenNS
Apartment
Land useInfrastrucutre levelPresence of a sewage networkVector breeding sites
(at household-level)
Entomological observationsPresence of mosquitoes at home+Exposure to mosquitoes bite
(at household-level)
Human immunityPrevious history of Dengue+Virus Exposition
(at household-level)
3 [137]Landsat 5 TM imageLand coverSurface TemperatureUrban heat islands+Vectors resting sites and virus replication (at large-admin level)Multiple cluster analysis
VegetationNormalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)Vectors breeding and resting sites (at large-admin level)
Survey questionnaireLand useUrban TypologySlums-like areasNSHuman-Vector encounter (at large-admin-level)
4 [138]Survey questionnaireHousing type and characteristicsHousing characteristicsScreens on windowsNSVectors exposure (at household-level)Univariate and Multivariate Analysis
Land useConstruction materialMixed type of house constructionNSVector breeding site (at neighborhood-level)
CroplandTaro farming+
Entomological observationPresence of Aedes albopictus+Vector exposure (at household-level)
Presence of Aedes aegypti+
Larvae-positive habitats+
Housing type and characteristicsHouse characteristicsAnimals water pans+Vector breeding site (at household-level)
Entomological observationPresence of Aedes+Vector exposure (at household-level)
5 [139]Survey questionnaireEntomological observationLarvae abundanceNSVector breeding site (at neighborhood-level)Cross-lagged correlation
6 [140]Survey questionnaireEntomological observationAedes Eggs indicatorsNSVector breeding site (at neighborhood-level)Generalized additive model
Aedes Pupae indicatorsNS
Aedes Adults indicatorsNSVector exposure (at neighborhood-level)
7 [141]GIS dataHuman densityHuman density+Human exposure to virus (at neighborhood-level)Linear statistic stratification
8 [142]Survey questionnaireHousing type and characteristicsHousing typeApartmentVector exposure (at household-level)GLMM GAM
House+
House characteristicsHouseholds with water supplyNSVector breeding site (at household-level)
Households with regular water supply
Households with water containers
Households with a sewage system
Households with a garbage collection
9 [143]Survey questionnaireHousing type and characteristicsHouse characteristicsAbsence of air conditioning+Vector exposure (at household-level)Multivariate logistic regression
Land useInfrastructure levelLack of street drainage+Vector breeding site (at neighborhood-level)
Entomological observationPresence of Aedes habitats+
10 [144]Landsat 8 imageLand useInfrastructure levelUrbanization level+Human-Vector encounter (at small-admin level)Linear correlations, and Coefficient of Geographical detector
GIS dataRoad density+Human mobility at small-admin level
MODIS imageLand coverVegetationNDVI and VFCVectors breeding and resting sites (at small-admin level)
GIS dataWater-areasWater-body areas
Landsat 8 and Quickbird imagesLand useUrban Typology% of urban villages+Human-Vector encounter (at small-admin level)
11 [145]Survey questionnaireHuman mobilityLong-distance human mobilityForeign inhabitants+Human and Virus mobility (at small-admin level)GLM
12 [146]Survey questionnaireEntomological observationsAdults and immatures Aedes+Exposure to mosquitoes bite
(at household-level)
G-test on contingency tables
Rate of Aedes pupae per person+
13 [147]Tele-interview survey questionnaireHousing type and characteristicsHousing typeOld flats+Vector exposure
at household-level
Logistic regression models and Odds Ratio (OR)
Sheds+
Housing characteristicsScreens on windowsNS
14 [148]2.5m SPOT 5 image
GIS data
(Baidu map)
Land useInfrastructure levelRoad network density+Human-vector encounter
(at neighborhood level)
Geographical detector
Subway lines network density+
Aging infrastructure+
Water-areasPonds area+Vector breeding site
(at neighborhood level)
Human densityNumber of the people on the building+Human exposure to virus
(at neighborhood level)
15 [149]GIS dataLand useInfrastructure level% of canals and ditches+Vectors breeding sites (at small admin-level)Quantile regression
Interaction ditches- residential areas+Human-Vector encounter (at small admin-level)
16 [150]GIS dataLand useUrban TypologyResidential area+Human-Vector encounter (at small admin-level)Quantile regression
Recreation areaNS
Business areaNS
Land coverCroplandAgriculture areaNSVectors breeding sites (at small-admin level)
Water areasWetland
Water areasNS
17 [151]GIS dataLand useInfrastructure levelProximity to parks+Human-Vector encounter (at neighborhood-level)GWR
TopographyProximity to riversNS
Land useUrban TypologyProximity to tyre shopsNS
Infrastructure levelProximity to water pumpsNS
Urban TypologyProximity to cemeteriesNS
Proximity to plant nurseries+
Infrastructure levelProximity to houses with a sewage system
18 [152]Survey questionnaireLand useInfrastructure level% of households with no piped waterNSVectors breeding sites (at small-admin level)Multivariate regression
% of households without systematic garbage collectionNS
Human densityPopulation densityNSHuman exposure to virus (at small-admin level)
Land useUrban TypologyRatio (Nb commercial) (Nb Households)NSHuman-Vector encounter (at small-admin level)
19 [153]IKONOS image GIS dataLand useUrban TypologyResidential areas+Human-Vector encounter (at small-admin level)Layers super-imposition
Industrial areas+
Commercial areasNS
Land coverBare soilsOpen areas+
Housing type and characteristicsHousing typeInterconnection houses+
Independent housesNS
Mixed housesNS
Land useUrban TypologyCommercial housesNS
Residential with commercial and industrial areas+
20 [154]Survey questionnaire (assisted by Google Earth imagery)Human mobilityLong-distance mobility+Human and virus mobility (at regional-level)OR (95 % CI) Logistic regression
Housing type and characteristicsHousing typeOne story homeNSVector exposure (at household-level)
Land useUrban TypologyTemporary constructionNS
Housing type and characteristicsHousing characteristicsScreens on windowsNS
Entomological observationBreeding containersNS
21 [155]Topographic dataTopographyAltitudeVector mobility (at regional-level)Bivariate statistics
Census dataLand useInfrastructure levelDrainageVector breeding sites (at large-admin level)
Public services availabilityHuman-Vector encounter (at large-admin level)
22 [156]GIS data (GPS data logger)Human mobilityNumber of visits out of the municipality’s administrative limits+Human and virus mobility (at city level)Conditionnal and multiple logistic regression
23 [157]GIS dataLand useUrban TypologyResidential with commercial industrial areas+Human-Vector encounter (at small-admin level)Layers super-imposition
Infrastructure levelWater network and built-up areas+
Urban TypologyInformal settlements areas+
24 [158]Survey questionnaire GIS dataEntomological observationAedes house index+Vector exposure (at neighborhood-level)Linear correlation (Spearmann)
25 [159]Survey questionnaireEntomological observationDiscarded containers+Vector breeding sites (at household-level)Univariate and Multivariate analysis (Odds Ratio)
Discarded tire casings+
Infested discarded plastic containers+
Infested discarded cans+
26 [160]Survey questionnaireHousing type and characteristicsConstruction materialWood-constructionNSVectors exposure (at household-level)Multiple logistic regression (Odds ratios)
Housing typeSingle-level houses
Land coverVegetationTree height+Vectors resting sites (at household-level)
Topography% Shaded+
Land useUrban TypologyLot sizeNSHuman density (at neighborhood-level)
Neighbor proximity
Land coverVegetationDistance house-vegetation+Vector exposure (at household-level)
Entomological observation% households with Aedes albopictus larvaeNSVector breeding sites (at neighborhood-level)
Housing type and characteristicsHousing characteristicsHome with birds+Vector exposure (at household-level)
Screens on windows
27 [161]Survey questionnaireTopographyStreet orientation to the wind+Vectors mobility (at small-admin level)Odds ratios
Housing type and characteristicsHousing characteristicsGutter-rain water+Vector breeding sites (at small-admin level)
Land useInfrastructure levelInefficient waste collection+
28 [162]Survey questionnaireLand useUrban TypologySlum area+Human-Vector encounter
(at neighborhood-level)
Generalized Additive Model (GAM)
Entomological observationMosquito abundanceNSVector exposure
(at neighborhood-level)
Land useUrban TypologyCommercial activity areas with human movements+Human-Vector encounter
at neighborhood-level
29 [163]MODIS imageLand coverVegetationNDVIVector breeding and resting sites (at city level)Spearman correlation
GLMM
GIS dataForest
Grassland
Land useCroplandAgricultural areas
Urban typologyPark+
30 [164]Survey questionnaireHousing type and characteristicsHousing characteristicsHighly shaded patio+Vector breeding site
(at household level)
Bivariate analysis using Chi-square, Fisher’s Exact or t-tests
Proximity to abandoned property+
Lack of piped water inside the house+
Daily garbage collection
Standing water in various recipient typesNS
Screens on all windowsNSVector exposure
(at household level)
31 [165]Quickbird imageLand coverUrban typology% of built-up area with vegetation surrounding+Human-vector encounter
(at neighborhood-level)
Spearman and Pearson correlation
Only built-up area
Topographic dataTopographyAltitudeVector mobility
(at large admnistrative-level)
32 [166]SPOT 5 imageLand useUrban TypologyQuality of neighborhoodHuman-Vector encounter
(at large-admin level)
GWR
33 [167]Survey questionnaireEntomological observationAedes aegypti population density+Vector exposure
(at neighborhood-level)
Spearman correlation coefficient
Aedes albopictus population densityNS
34 [168]Survey questionnaireEntomological observation% of houses with larva on the premises+Vector exposure
(at household-level)
Odds ratios
% of houses with uncovered water containers+Vector breeding sites
(at neighborhood level)
Topographic dataTopographyAltitudeVector mobility
(at regional level)
35 [169]Survey questionnaireLand useUrban TypologyCommercial ecotypeNSHuman-Vector encounter
(at neigborhood-level)
Uni, multi-variate hierarchical logistic regression
DENPURA ecotypeNS
RCDENPURA ecotype+
RC ecotypeNS
Human immunityHistorical dengue risk areas+Virus exposition
(at small-admin level)
Housing type and characteristicsHousing characteristicsNumber of house floorsNSVector exposure
(at household-level)
Floor of principal livingNS
Construction materialConstruction material of houseNS
Housing characteristicsNumber of house windowsNS
Having screens for house windows+
Having a yard/open spaceNS
Having bushes in a yard/ open spaceNS
House attachmentNS
36 [170]MODIS-VI imageLand useUrban Typology% of construction area+Human-Vector encounter
(at large-admin level)
Generalized linear model logistic regression
Land coverVegetation% of shrubs+Vector resting and breeding sites
(at large-admin level)
Water-areas% of wet grassland+
% of water area+
Land useCropland% of paddy field+
37 [171]GIS dataLand useInfrastructure levelHigh-density road networks+Human and virus mobility
(at neighborhood-level)
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
Proximity to narrow roads+
38 [172]Survey questionnaireHousing type and characteristicsHousing characteristicsPoor housing condition+Human-Vector encounter
(at small-admin level)
(Moran’s I) Negative binomial model
Land useInfrastructure levelAccess to paved road
Housing type and characteristicsHousing typeUnoccupied housesNS
39 [173]Survey questionnaire (the National Bureau of Statistics of China)Land useUrban typologyUrban, urban-rural and rural communitiesNSHuman-vector encounter
(at neighborhood-level)
Univariate logistic regression Stepwise logistic regression
40 [174]Google earthLand coverUrban Typology% of built-up area+Human-vector encounter
(at large admin-level)
Descriptive statistical analysis
41 [175]Landsat 7, Landsat 8, IRS-P6, and Sentinel-2Land coverUrban typologyBuilt-up density+Human-vector encounter
(at city-level)
Poisson regression
Water areasDistance from water bodiesVector breeding site
(at city-level)
VegetationVegetation densityVector resting site
(at city-level)
Topography data and high resolution satellite imagesLand useInfrastructure levelDistance from drainage networksVector breeding site
(at city-level)
42 [176]LandsatLand coverVegetationNormalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)+Vectors breeding and resting sites
(at small-admin level)
Pearson coefficient
Bayesian model
MODIS Surface TemperatureUrban heat islands (UHI)NSVectors and Virus replication
(at small-admin level)
43 [177]Survey questionnaireHousing type and characteristicsHousing characteristicsPresence of house screeningHuman-Vector encounter
(at household-level)
Stepwise logisticregression analysis (odds ratio)
Presence of rainwater tanks on the property/two residential blocks+
Presence of evaporative cooling unitsNS
Human immunityPresence of a suspected case of dengue household / two residential blocks+
44 [178]Census dataHuman density Human density+Human-Vector encounter (at small-admin level)Pearson, Spearmann, and multiple analysis
Housing type and characteristicsHousing characteristics% of well-condition house
% of poor-condition house+
MODISLand coverVegetationEnhanced Vegetation Index+Vectors breeding and resting sites (at large scale)
Topographic dataTopographyAltitude of city centerVector mobility (at large scale)
45 [179]Landsat imageLand coverVegetationNDVIVector breeding and resting sites
(at city level)
Simple linear regression
46 [180]Survey questionnaireHousing type and characteristicsHousing type% of one-story home+Vector exposure (at small-admin level)Spatial regression
47 [181]Landsat 8-OLI TIRSLand coverVegetationNDVINSVector breeding or resting sites
(at large amnistrative-level)
Linear stepwise regression
Water areasNDWINS
Urban typologyNDBINSHuman-vector encounter
(at large amnistrative-level)
Surface temperatureLSTNSVectors and virus replication
(at large amnistrative-level)
48 [182]Survey questionnaireHousing type and characteristicsHousing typeApartmentVector exposure (at household-level)OR (95% CI) Logistic regression
House/shanty+
49 [183]Survey questionnaireLand useUrban TypologyTemporary/unplanned/slumHuman-Vector encounter (at neighborhood-level)Uni, multi-variate hierarchical logistic regression
Housing type and characteristicsHousing typeMulti-floor building
Single story attached building
Single story detached building+
50 [184]Census dataInfrastructure levelUrban TypologyPrefectural boundary+Human-Vector encounter (at small-admin level)GAM
Land useUrban and rural+
Human densityHuman density+Human exposure to virus (at small-admin level)
GIS dataLand useInfrastructure levelRoad density+Human mobility (at small-admin level)
Remote sensing images (unknow sensor)Land coverVegetationNormalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)+Vectors breeding and resting sites (at small-admin level)
51 [185]GIS dataLand useUrban typologyUrban village+Human-vector encounter
(at large amnistrative-level)
Generalized additive model (GAM)
Urban-rural fringe areas+
Infrastructure levelRoad density+Human mobility
(at large amnistrative-level)
Remote sensing images (not clear)Land coverVegetationNDVIVector breeding or resting sites
(at large amnistrative-level)
52 [186]Survey questionnaireHousing type and characteristicsHousing characteristicsAbsence of air conditioning+Vector exposure (at household-level)Univariate and Multivariate analyis
Human mobilityNo history of outside-travel+Human mobility (at regional-level)
Land useUrban TypologyDistances to neighboring houses+Human-Vector encounter (at neighborhood-level)
53 [187]GF-2 satellite image ?Land useUrban typologyUrban villages associated to public transport+Human-vector encounter
(at large amnistrative-level)
Pearson correlation and
Geographically weighted regression
(GWR)
54 [188]World View 2 imageLand useUrban typologyMean size of pitched roof+Vectors breeding and resting sites (at neighborhood-level)(Moran’s I) GWR
Mean size of flatted roof
55 [189]Survey questionnaireEntomologic observationsNumber of female Aedes aegypti per person+Vector exposure (at household-level)Univariate and multivariate logistic regression methods
Housing type and characteristicsConstruction materialConcrete construction+
Wood constructionNS
Housing characteristicsAnimals on the propertyNS
No air conditioner device+
No use of screens on windows+
56 [190]LANDSAT 5 TM satellite imageLand coverWater-areasDistance to river+Human-Vector encounter (at neigborhood-level)Visual interpretation Pearson correlation coefficient
VegetationDistance to Vegetation+
VegetationTasseled cap vegetation+Vectors breeding and resting sites (at neighborhood-level)
Water-areasTasseled cap wetness+
Built-upTasseled cap brightness+Human presence (at neighborhood-level)
57 [191]ALOS Google Earth GIS dataLand useUrban TypologyDense populated areas surrounded by vegetation+Vector exposure (at neighborhood-level)Geo-spatial analysis
Institutions 40%, religious places (18%) market (15%)+Human-Vector encounter (at neighborhood-level)
58 [192]Census, OSM and GIS dataLand useUrban TypologyHigh-rise housingHuman-Vector encounter (at neighborhood-level)Chi-square test
Low-rise housing+
Infrastructure levelDensity of the urban drainage network+Vectors breeding sites (at neighborhood-level)
Entomological surveyEntomological observationPupal density per 1000 populationNSVectors breeding sites (at neighborhood-level)Pearson Coefficient
59 [193]Census dataLand useUrban TypologyComposite normalized housing condition index+Human-Vector encounter (at neighborhood-level)Global linear model
Infrastructure levelShort distance from hospital+Dengue reporting (at neighborhood-level)
Access to piped water+Vectors breeding sites (at neighborhood-level)
Entomological surveyEntomological observationBreteau IndexNSVectors breeding sites (at neighborhood-level)
60 [194]Entomological surveyEntomological observationBreteau indexNSVectors breeding sites at household-levelCorrelation coefficient
House indexNS
61 [195]Census dataHuman densityHuman density+Human exposure to virus (at neighborhood-level)Pearson cooefficients
Entomological surveyEntomological observationPremise indexNSVectors breeding sites at neighborhood-levelRisk ratio
62 [196]Census dataHuman density% of urban population+Human exposure to virus (at small-admin level)Spearmann coefficient Multi-linear regression
Land useInfrastructure level% of population connected to water networkVectors breeding sites (at small-admin level)
% of coverage by Family health programHuman exposure to virus (at small-admin level)
63 [197]Census dataLand coverVegetationDistance from forested areasHuman-Vector encounter (at neighborhood-level)
Land useInfrastructure levelProximity to a sentinel hospitalVirus observation (at small-admin level)
Urban TypologyDeprived areas with medium-high human densities+Human-Vector encounter (at small-admin level)
Rich areas+
64 [198]Topographic surveyTopographyMean AltitudeVector mobility (at city-level)Pearson Coefficient
65 [199]Survey questionnaireLand useUrban TypologyHouse densityNSHuman-Vector encounter (at small-admin level)Pearson coefficient
% of shop-houses+
% of single houses
Land cover% of buildingNS
Land use% of slum
Housing type and characteristicsHousing type% of empty houses+
Construction material% of brick-made houses+
% of brick-made/wood housesNS
Land useInfrastructure level% of houses with garbage system+
% of houses with poor drainage systemNS
Housing type and characteristicsHousing characteristics% of houses without window screensNS
66 [200]Landsat imageLand coverWater-areasWater surface+Vector breeding sites and vector mobility (at city-level)Linear correlation
67 [201]Google EarthLand useUrban Typology% of developed land+Human-Vector encounter (at neighborhood-level)Spearman correlation coefficient
Land coverVegetation% of Vegetation
Water-areas% of water surfaceNS
68 [202]Survey questionnaireHouse type and characteristics
Entomological observation
House characteristicsLiving near open sewers+Vector exposure (at household-level)Odds ratios
Mosquitoes presence in the house+
69 [203]MODIS-ASTERLand coverVegetationEVI-NDVIVectors breeding and resting sites (at small-admin level)Pearson coefficient
QuickbirdLand coverUrban Typology% Built areaNSHuman-Vector encounter (at small-admin level)
Vegetation% Tree areaNSVectors breeding and resting sites (at small-admin level)
Urban Typology% Built areaHuman-Vector encounter (at small-admin level)
Vegetation% Tree cover+Vectors breeding and resting sites (at small-admin level)
70 [204]Survey questionnaireHousing type and characteristicsConstruction materialWood Households+Vector exposure (at household-level)Logistic regression
Stone and concreteNS
Combination of stone and woodNS
Housing characteristicsScreened windows
Landsat imageLand useCroplandDistance to orchards+Human-Vector encounter (at neighborhood-level)
VegetationDistance to sparely VegetationNS
Land coverUrban Typology% of densely built area in 200 m
71 [205]Survey questionnaireHousing type and characteristicsConstruction materialWood/bamboo HouseholdsVector exposure (at household-level)Logistic regression
Stone Households+
Combination of stone and wood+
Housing characteristicsBednets
Land useCroplandDistance to orchardsHuman-Vector encounter (at neighborhood-level)
Landsat 5 image and GIS dataLand coverWater-areasDistance to waterbodies+
Bare soils% of bare soil in 200 m-buffer
Land useUrban Typology% of village area with VegetationNS
72 [206]Survey questionnaireHousing type and characteristicsHousing characteristicsHousing sizeNSVector exposure
(at household-level)
Bivariate analysis
using t-test (ratio scale)
and chi square (test nominal) scale
Non permanent wall+Vector breeding site
(at household-level)
73 [207]Survey questionnaireLand useUrban TypologySlum housing+Human-Vector encounter (at neighborhood-level)Univariate and Multivariate analysis
Land coverVegetationTree height+Vectors resting sites (at household-level)
TopographyShade+
Housing type and characteristicsHousing CharacteristicsScreens on windowsVector exposure (at household-level)
Construction materialWood structure+
Entomological observationsDay-biting mosquitoes+
74 [208]Survey questionnaireLand coverBare soilsVacant grounds+Vectors breeding and resting sites (at small-admin level)Univariate and Multivariate analysis
Land useUrban TypologyEmpty house+
Markets-parksNSHuman-Vector encounter (at small-admin level)
Human densityPopulation density+
Human mobilityCommuting patterns+Human and virus mobility (at regional level)
75 [209]Survey questionnaireLand useUrban TypologyHigh rise residential apartment+Human-Vector encounter (at neighborhood-level)t-test analysis analysis of variance, chi square, Uni-variate and multivariate logistic regression
Housing type and characteristicsHousing characteristicsTerraced houseVectors breeding and resting sites (at household-level)
Vegetation surround
Land useUrban TypologySingle houseHuman-Vector encounter (at neighborhood-level)
Entomological observationMosquito problem+Vector exposure (at household-level)
76 [210]GF-1 imageLand coverWaterNDWI+Vector breeding and resting sites
(at neighborhood-level)
Spearman rank correlation
and Ordinary least square
(OLR)
MODIS imageSurface waterLST day+Vector resting site and virus replication
(at neighborhood-level)
LST night+
77 [211]Survey questionnaireHousing type and characteristicsHousing characteristicsMulti-storey public flatsNSVector exposure (at household-level)Multi-level logistic regression
Multi-storey private flatsNS
Land useUrban TypologyLanded housesNS
Human mobilityUse of public transportationNSHuman mobility (at small-admin level)
Foreign workers dormitory or hostel+Human mobility (at regional level)
78 [212]Landsat 7 ETM+ imageLand coverVegetationVegetation coverage+Vectors breeding and resting sites (at neighborhood-level)Univariable and multivariable generalized linear model
Census dataHousing type and characteristicsHuman densityHouseholds crowding+Human-Vector encounter (at neighborhood-level)
Households densityNS
Housing type and characteristicsHousing typeOld buildings+Vector exposure (at household-level)
Degraded loggingsNS
Apartment 2008–2009
Apartment 2012–2013
Construction materialCement loggings 2008–2009NS
Cement loggings 2012–2013+

References

  1. World Health Organization. Global Strategy for Dengue Prevention and Control, 2012–2020; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bhatt, S.; Gething, P.W.; Brady, O.J.; Messina, J.P.; Farlow, A.W.; Moyes, C.L.; Drake, J.M.; Brownstein, J.S.; Hoen, A.G.; Sankoh, O.; et al. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature 2013, 496, 504–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gubler, D.J. Dengue, Urbanization and Globalization: The Unholy Trinity of the 21(st) Century. Trop. Med. Health 2011, 39, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Li, Y.; Kamara, F.; Zhou, G.; Puthiyakunnon, S.; Li, C.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Yao, L.; Yan, G.; Chen, X.G. Urbanization Increases Aedes albopictus Larval Habitats and Accelerates Mosquito Development and Survivorship. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2014, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Zahouli, J.; Koudou, B.; Müller, P.; Malone, D.; Tano, Y.; Utzinger, J. Urbanization is a main driver for the larval ecology of Aedes mosquitoes in arbovirus-endemic settings in south-eastern Côte d’Ivoire. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Neiderud, C.J. How urbanization affects the epidemiology of emerging infectious diseases. Infect. Ecol. Epidemiol. 2015, 5, 27060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Rodrigues, M.; Marques, G.; Serpa, L.; Arduino, M.; Voltolini, J.; Barbosa, G.; Andrade, V.; de Lima, V. Density of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus and its association with number of residents and meteorological variables in the home environment of dengue endemic area, São Paulo, Brazil. Parasites Vectors 2015, 8, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Kraemer, M.; Sinka, M.; Duda, K.; Mylne, A.; Shearer, F.; Barker, C.; Moore, C.; Carvalho, R.; Coelho, G.; Van Bortel, W.; et al. The global distribution of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Ae. Albopictus. eLife 2015, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Powell, J.R.; Tabachnick, W.J.; Powell, J.R.; Tabachnick, W.J. History of domestication and spread of Aedes aegypti—A Review. Memórias Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2013, 108, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Sallam, M.F.; Fizer, C.; Pilant, A.N.; Whung, P.Y. Systematic Review: Land Cover, Meteorological, and Socioeconomic Determinants of Aedes Mosquito Habitat for Risk Mapping. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Waldock, J.; Chandra, N.L.; Lelieveld, J.; Proestos, Y.; Michael, E.; Christophides, G.; Parham, P.E. The role of environmental variables on Aedes albopictus biology and chikungunya epidemiology. Pathog. Glob. Health 2013, 107, 224–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Carrington, L.B.; Simmons, C.P. Human to Mosquito Transmission of Dengue Viruses. Front. Immunol. 2014, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Scott, T.W.; Morrison, A. Aedes aegypti density and the risk of dengue-virus transmission. Frontis 2004, 2, 187–206. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kuno, G. Factors Influencing the Transmission of Dengue Viruses; Gubler, D.J., Kuno, G., Eds.; CABI: New York, NY, USA, 1997; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  15. Recker, M.; Blyuss, K.B.; Simmons, C.P.; Hien, T.T.; Wills, B.; Farrar, J.; Gupta, S. Immunological serotype interactions and their effect on the epidemiological pattern of dengue. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Salje, H.; Lessler, J.; Endy, T.P.; Curriero, F.C.; Gibbons, R.V.; Nisalak, A.; Nimmannitya, S.; Kalayanarooj, S.; Jarman, R.G.; Thomas, S.J.; et al. Revealing the microscale spatial signature of dengue transmission and immunity in an urban population. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 9535–9538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Ferraguti, M.; Martínez-de la Puente, J.; Roiz, D.; Ruiz, S.; Soriguer, R.; Figuerola, J. Effects of landscape anthropization on mosquito community composition and abundance. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Achee, N.L.; Gould, F.; Perkins, T.A.; Reiner, R.C., Jr.; Morrison, A.C.; Ritchie, S.A.; Gubler, D.J.; Teyssou, R.; Scott, T.W. A Critical Assessment of Vector Control for Dengue Prevention. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2015, 9, e0003655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pérez, S.; Laperrière, V.; Borderon, M.; Padilla, C.; Maignant, G.; Oliveau, S. Evolution of research in health geographics through the International Journal of Health Geographics (2002–2015). Int. J. Health Geogr. 2016, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Favier, C.; Schmit, D.; Müller-Graf, C.D.M.; Cazelles, B.; Degallier, N.; Mondet, B.; Dubois, M.A. Influence of Spatial Heterogeneity on an Emerging Infectious Disease: The Case of Dengue Epidemics. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2005, 272, 1171–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Oliveira, M.A.d.; Ribeiro, H.; Castillo-Salgado, C. Geospatial analysis applied to epidemiological studies of dengue: A systematic review. Rev. Bras. Epidemiol. 2013, 16, 907–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Guo, C.; Zhou, Z.; Wen, Z.; Liu, Y.; Zeng, C.; Xiao, D.; Ou, M.; Han, Y.; Huang, S.; Liu, D.; et al. Global Epidemiology of Dengue Outbreaks in 1990–2015: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2017, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Reiner, R.C.; Stoddard, S.T.; Scott, T.W. Socially structured human movement shapes dengue transmission despite the diffusive effect of mosquito dispersal. Epidemics 2014, 6, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. LaDeau, S.L.; Allan, B.F.; Leisnham, P.T.; Levy, M.Z. The ecological foundations of transmission potential and vector-borne disease in urban landscapes. Funct. Ecol. 2015, 29, 889–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Ostfeld, R.S.; Glass, G.E.; Keesing, F. Spatial epidemiology: An emerging (or re-emerging) discipline. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2005, 20, 328–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Jacquez, G.M. Spatial analysis in epidemiology: Nascent science or a failure of GIS? J. Geogr. Syst. 2000, 2, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lawson, A.B. Statistical Methods in Spatial Epidemiology; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rezaeian, M.; Dunn, G.; St Leger, S.; Appleby, L. Geographical epidemiology, spatial analysis and geographical information systems: A multidisciplinary glossary. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2007, 61, 98–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Stevens, K.B.; Pfeiffer, D.U. Sources of spatial animal and human health data: Casting the net wide to deal more effectively with increasingly complex disease problems. Spat. Spatio-Temporal Epidemiol. 2015, 13, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Kalluri, S.; Gilruth, P.; Rogers, D.; Szczur, M. Surveillance of Arthropod Vector-Borne Infectious Diseases Using Remote Sensing Techniques: A Review. PLoS Pathog. 2007, 3, e116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Marechal, F.; Ribeiro, N.; Lafaye, M.; Güell, A. Satellite imaging and vector-borne diseases: The approach of the French National Space Agency (CNES). Geospat. Health 2008, 3, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Machault, V.; Vignolles, C.; Borchi, F.; Vounatsou, P.; Pages, F.; Briolant, S.; Lacaux, J.P.; Rogier, C. The use of remotely sensed environmental data in the study of malaria. Geospat. Health 2011, 5, 151–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Viana, J.; Santos, J.; Neiva, R.; Souza, J.; Duarte, L.; Teodoro, A.; Freitas, A. Remote Sensing in Human Health: A 10-Year Bibliometric Analysis. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Herbreteau, V.; Salem, G.; Souris, M.; Hugot, J.P.; Gonzalez, J.P. Thirty years of use and improvement of remote sensing, applied to epidemiology: From early promises to lasting frustration. Health Place 2007, 13, 400–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Herbreteau, V.; Kassié, D.; Roux, E.; Marti, R.; Catry, T.; Attoumane, A.; Révillion, C.; Commins, J.; Dessay, N.; Mangeas, M.; et al. Observer la Terre pour appréhender spatialement les inégalités de santé : regard historique et prospectif sur l’utilisation de la télédétection dans le domaine de la santé. Confins 2018, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Louis, V.R.; Phalkey, R.; Horstick, O.; Ratanawong, P.; Wilder-Smith, A.; Tozan, Y.; Dambach, P. Modeling tools for dengue risk mapping—A systematic review. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2014, 13, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Morin, C.W.; Comrie, A.C.; Ernst, K. Climate and Dengue Transmission: Evidence and Implications. Environ. Health Perspect. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Beale, L.; Abellan, J.J.; Hodgson, S.; Jarup, L. Methodologic Issues and Approaches to Spatial Epidemiology. Environ. Health Perspect. 2008, 116, 1105–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Brady, O.J.; Gething, P.W.; Bhatt, S.; Messina, J.P.; Brownstein, J.S.; Hoen, A.G.; Moyes, C.L.; Farlow, A.W.; Scott, T.W.; Hay, S.I. Refining the global spatial limits of dengue virus transmission by evidence-based consensus. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2012, 6, e1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Grant, M.J.; Booth, A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J. 2009, 26, 91–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005, 8, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Munn, Z.; Peters, M.D.J.; Stern, C.; Tufanaru, C.; McArthur, A.; Aromataris, E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018, 18, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Parr, J.B. Spatial Definitions of the City: Four Perspectives. Urban Stud. 2007, 44, 381–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pesaresi, M.; Corbane, C.; Julea, A.; Florczyk, A.J.; Syrris, V.; Soille, P. Assessment of the Added-Value of Sentinel-2 for Detecting Built-up Areas. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Esch, T.; Bachofer, F.; Heldens, W.; Hirner, A.; Marconcini, M.; Palacios-Lopez, D.; Roth, A.; Üreyen, S.; Zeidler, J.; Dech, S.; et al. Where We Live—A Summary of the Achievements and Planned Evolution of the Global Urban Footprint. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Liu, X.; Hu, G.; Chen, Y.; Li, X.; Xu, X.; Li, S.; Pei, F.; Wang, S. High-resolution multi-temporal mapping of global urban land using Landsat images based on the Google Earth Engine Platform. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 209, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Voss, P.H.; Rehfuess, E.A. Quality appraisal in systematic reviews of public health interventions: An empirical study on the impact of choice of tool on meta-analysis. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2013, 67, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Knutas, A.; Hajikhani, A.; Salminen, J.; Ikonen, J.; Porras, J. Cloud-based Bibliometric Analysis Service for Systematic Mapping Studies. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies, Dublin, Ireland, 25–26 June 2015; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 184–191. [Google Scholar]
  50. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Inf. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Rigau-Pérez, J.G.; Clark, G.G.; Gubler, D.J.; Reiter, P.; Sanders, E.J.; Vance Vorndam, A. Dengue and dengue haemorrhagic fever. Lancet 1998, 352, 971–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Moran, P.A.P. Notes on Continuous Stochastic Phenomena. Biometrika 1950, 37, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Maciel-de Freitas, R.; Lourenço-de Oliveira, R. Presumed unconstrained dispersal of Aedes aegypti in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Rev. Saúde Pública 2009, 43, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Longley, P.A. Geographical Information Systems: Will developments in urban remote sensing and GIS lead to ‘better’ urban geography? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2002, 26, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Schmidt, W.P.; Suzuki, M.; Thiem, V.D.; White, R.G.; Tsuzuki, A.; Yoshida, L.M.; Yanai, H.; Haque, U.; Tho, L.H.; Anh, D.D.; et al. Population density, water supply, and the risk of dengue fever in Vietnam: cohort study and spatial analysis. PLoS Med. 2011, 8, e1001082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Mota, F.B.; Galina, A.C.; Silva, R.M.D. Mapping the dengue scientific landscape worldwide: a bibliometric and network analysis. Memórias Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2017, 112, 354–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Malone, R.W.; Homan, J.; Callahan, M.V.; Glasspool-Malone, J.; Damodaran, L.; Schneider, A.D.B.; Zimler, R.; Talton, J.; Cobb, R.R.; Zika Response Working Group; et al. Zika Virus: Medical Countermeasure Development Challenges. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2016, 10, e0004530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Shragai, T.; Tesla, B.; Murdock, C.; Harrington, L.C. Zika and chikungunya: mosquito-borne viruses in a changing world. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2017, 1399, 61–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Lim, J.K.; Carabali, M.; Lee, J.S.; Lee, K.S.; Namkung, S.; Lim, S.K.; Ridde, V.; Fernandes, J.; Lell, B.; Matendechero, S.H.; et al. Evaluating dengue burden in Africa in passive fever surveillance and seroprevalence studies: protocol of field studies of the Dengue Vaccine Initiative. BMJ Open 2018, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Amarasinghe, A.; Kuritsk, J.N.; Letson, G.W.; Margolis, H.S. Dengue virus infection in Africa. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 1349–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Messina, J.P.; Brady, O.J.; Golding, N.; Kraemer, M.U.G.; Wint, G.R.W.; Ray, S.E.; Pigott, D.M.; Shearer, F.M.; Johnson, K.; Earl, L.; et al. The current and future global distribution and population at risk of dengue. Nat. Microbiol. 2019, 4, 1508–1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Were, F. The dengue situation in Africa. Paediatr. Int. Child Health 2012, 32, 18–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rodenhuis-Zybert, I.A.; Wilschut, J.; Smit, J.M. Dengue virus life cycle: Viral and host factors modulating infectivity. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2010, 67, 2773–2786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Standish, K.; Kuan, G.; Avilés, W.; Balmaseda, A.; Harris, E. High Dengue Case Capture Rate in Four Years of a Cohort Study in Nicaragua Compared to National Surveillance Data. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2010, 4, e633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Runge-Ranzinger, S.; McCall, P.J.; Kroeger, A.; Horstick, O. Dengue disease surveillance: An updated systematic literature review. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2014, 19, 1116–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Vong, S.; Goyet, S.; Ly, S.; Ngan, C.; Huy, R.; Duong, V.; Wichmann, O.; Letson, G.W.; Margolis, H.S.; Buchy, P. Under-recognition and reporting of dengue in Cambodia: A capture–recapture analysis of the National Dengue Surveillance System. Epidemiol. Infect. 2012, 140, 491–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Salje, H.; Lessler, J.; Berry, I.M.; Melendrez, M.C.; Endy, T.; Kalayanarooj, S.; A-Nuegoonpipat, A.; Chanama, S.; Sangkijporn, S.; Klungthong, C.; et al. Dengue diversity across spatial and temporal scales: Local structure and the effect of host population size. Science 2017, 355, 1302–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Openshow, S. A Million or So Correlation Coefficients, Three Experiments on the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem; Pion: London, UK, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  70. Arsenault, J.; Michel, P.; Berke, O.; Ravel, A.; Gosselin, P. How to choose geographical units in ecological studies: Proposal and application to campylobacteriosis. Spat. Spatio-Temporal Epidemiol. 2013, 7, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Kienberger, S.; Hagenlocher, M. Spatial-explicit modeling of social vulnerability to malaria in East Africa. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2014, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Lambin, E.F.; Tran, A.; Vanwambeke, S.O.; Linard, C.; Soti, V. Pathogenic landscapes: Interactions between land, people, disease vectors, and their animal hosts. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2010, 9, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Mulligan, K.; Elliott, S.J.; Schuster-Wallace, C.J. Global public health policy transfer and dengue fever in Putrajaya, Malaysia: A critical discourse analysis. Crit. Public Health 2012, 22, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sagna, A.B.; Yobo, M.C.; Elanga Ndille, E.; Remoue, F. New Immuno-Epidemiological Biomarker of Human Exposure to Aedes Vector Bites: From Concept to Applications. Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2018, 3, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Li, Z.; Catry, T.; Dessay, N.; Roux, E.; Mahé, E.; Seyler, F. Multi-sensor data fusion for identifying malaria environmental features. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), Beijing, China, 10–15 July 2016; pp. 2529–2532. [Google Scholar]
  76. Li, Z.; Catry, T.; Dessay, N.; da Costa Gurgel, H.; Aparecido de Almeida, C.; Barcellos, C.; Roux, E. Regionalization of a Landscape-Based Hazard Index of Malaria Transmission: An Example of the State of Amapá, Brazil. Data 2017, 2, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Albrieu-Llinás, G.; Espinosa, M.O.; Quaglia, A.; Abril, M.; Scavuzzo, C.M. Urban environmental clustering to assess the spatial dynamics of Aedes aegypti breeding sites. Geospat. Health 2018, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Kassié, D.; Roudot, A.; Dessay, N.; Piermay, J.L.; Salem, G.; Fournet, F. Development of a spatial sampling protocol using GIS to measure health disparities in Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso, a medium-sized African city. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2017, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Lang, S.; Hagenlocher, M.; Pernkopf, L.; Kienberger, S.; Tiede, D. Object-based multi-indicator representation of complex spatial phenomena. South-Eastern Eur. J. Earth Obs. Geomat. 2014, 3, 625–628. [Google Scholar]
  80. Sarfraz, M.; Tripathi, N.; Tipdecho, T.; Thongbu, T.; Kerdthong, P.; Souris, M. Analyzing the spatio-temporal relationship between dengue vector larval density and land-use using factor analysis and spatial ring mapping. BMC Public Health 2012, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Cromwell, E.A.; Stoddard, S.T.; Barker, C.M.; Van Rie, A.; Messer, W.B.; Meshnick, S.R.; Morrison, A.C.; Scott, T.W. The relationship between entomological indicators of Aedes aegypti abundance and dengue virus infection. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Bowman, L.R.; Donegan, S.; McCall, P.J. Is Dengue Vector Control Deficient in Effectiveness or Evidence? Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2016, 10, e0004551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Roiz, D.; Wilson, A.L.; Scott, T.W.; Fonseca, D.M.; Jourdain, F.; Müller, P.; Velayudhan, R.; Corbel, V. Integrated Aedes management for the control of Aedes-borne diseases. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2018, 12, e0006845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Khormi, H.M.; Kumar, L. Modeling dengue fever risk based on socioeconomic parameters, nationality and age groups: GIS and remote sensing based case study. Sci. Total. Environ. 2011, 409, 4713–4719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Khormi, H.M.; Kumar, L. Assessing the risk for dengue fever based on socioeconomic and environmental variables in a geographical information system environment. Geospat. Health 2012, 6, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Khormi, H.M.; Kumar, L. The importance of appropriate temporal and spatial scales for dengue fever control and management. Sci. Total. Environ. 2012, 430, 144–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Tran, A.; L’Ambert, G.; Lacour, G.; Benoît, R.; Demarchi, M.; Cros, M.; Cailly, P.; Aubry-Kientz, M.; Balenghien, T.; Ezanno, P. A rainfall- and temperature-driven abundance model for Aedes albopictus populations. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 1698–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  88. Tran, A.; Fall, A.G.; Biteye, B.; Ciss, M.; Gimonneau, G.; Castets, M.; Seck, M.T.; Chevalier, V. Spatial Modeling of Mosquito Vectors for Rift Valley Fever Virus in Northern Senegal: Integrating Satellite-Derived Meteorological Estimates in Population Dynamics Models. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Tran, A.; Mangeas, M.; Demarchi, M.; Roux, E.; Degenne, P.; Haramboure, M.; Goff, G.L.; Damiens, D.; Gouagna, L.C.; Herbreteau, V.; et al. Complementarity of empirical and process-based approaches to modelling mosquito population dynamics with Aedes albopictus as an example—Application to the development of an operational mapping tool of vector populations. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0227407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Maneerat, S.; Daude, E. A spatial agent-based simulation model of the dengue vector Aedes aegypti to explore its population dynamics in urban areas. Ecol. Model. 2016, 333, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Misslin, R.; Daudé, E. An environmental suitability index based on the ecological constraints of Aedes aegypti, vector of dengue. Rev. Int. Géomatique 2017, 27, 481–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Scavuzzo, J.M.; Trucco, F.; Espinosa, M.; Tauro, C.B.; Abril, M.; Scavuzzo, C.M.; Frery, A.C. Modeling Dengue vector population using remotely sensed data and machine learning. Acta Trop. 2018, 185, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Champagne, C.; Cazelles, B. Comparison of stochastic and deterministic frameworks in dengue modelling. Math. Biosci. 2019, 310, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Gloster, J.; Jones, A.; Redington, A.; Burgin, L.; Sørensen, J.H.; Turner, R.; Dillon, M.; Hullinger, P.; Simpson, M.; Astrup, P.; et al. Airborne spread of foot-and-mouth disease—Model intercomparison. Vet. J. 2010, 183, 278–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Tompkins, A.M.; Caporaso, L. Assessment of malaria transmission changes in Africa, due to the climate impact of land use change using Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 earth system models. Geospat. Health 2016, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Alirol, E.; Getaz, L.; Stoll, B.; Chappuis, F.; Loutan, L. Urbanisation and infectious diseases in a globalised world. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2011, 11, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Pautasso, M. Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2013, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Tonne, C.; Basagaña, X.; Chaix, B.; Huynen, M.; Hystad, P.; Nawrot, T.S.; Slama, R.; Vermeulen, R.; Weuve, J.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M. New frontiers for environmental epidemiology in a changing world. Environ. Int. 2017, 104, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  99. Fritzell, C.; Rousset, D.; Adde, A.; Kazanji, M.; Kerkhove, M.D.V.; Flamand, C. Current challenges and implications for dengue, chikungunya and Zika seroprevalence studies worldwide: A scoping review. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2018, 12, e0006533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  100. Tjaden, N.B.; Caminade, C.; Beierkuhnlein, C.; Thomas, S.M. Mosquito-Borne Diseases: Advances in Modelling Climate-Change Impacts. Trends Parasitol. 2018, 34, 227–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Vega-Almeida, R.L.; Carrillo-Calvet, H.; Arencibia-Jorge, R. Diseases and vector: A 10 years view of scientific literature on Aedes aegypti. Scientometrics 2018, 115, 1627–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Parselia, E.; Kontoes, C.; Tsouni, A.; Hadjichristodoulou, C.; Kioutsioukis, I.; Magiorkinis, G.; Stilianakis, N.I. Satellite Earth Observation Data in Epidemiological Modeling of Malaria, Dengue and West Nile Virus: A Scoping Review. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Lefebvre, A.; Sannier, C.; Corpetti, T. Monitoring Urban Areas with Sentinel-2A Data: Application to the Update of the Copernicus High Resolution Layer Imperviousness Degree. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Pu, R.; Landry, S.; Yu, Q. Assessing the potential of multi-seasonal high resolution Pléiades satellite imagery for mapping urban tree species. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2018, 71, 144–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Jozdani, S.E.; Johnson, B.A.; Chen, D. Comparing Deep Neural Networks, Ensemble Classifiers, and Support Vector Machine Algorithms for Object-Based Urban Land Use/Land Cover Classification. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Yuan, Q.; Shen, H.; Li, T.; Li, Z.; Li, S.; Jiang, Y.; Xu, H.; Tan, W.; Yang, Q.; Wang, J.; et al. Deep learning in environmental remote sensing: Achievements and challenges. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 241, 111716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Zheng, Z.; Du, S.; Wang, Y.C.; Wang, Q. Mining the regularity of landscape-structure heterogeneity to improve urban land-cover mapping. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 214, 14–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. He, Q.; Zeng, C.; Xie, P.; Tan, S.; Wu, J. Comparison of urban growth patterns and changes between three urban agglomerations in China and three metropolises in the USA from 1995 to 2015. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 50, 101649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Zhang, F.; Wu, L.; Zhu, D.; Liu, Y. Social sensing from street-level imagery: A case study in learning spatio-temporal urban mobility patterns. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote. Sens. 2019, 153, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Mahabir, R.; Croitoru, A.; Crooks, A.; Agouris, P.; Stefanidis, A. A Critical Review of High and Very High-Resolution Remote Sensing Approaches for Detecting and Mapping Slums: Trends, Challenges and Emerging Opportunities. Urban Sci. 2018, 2, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Watts, D.M.; Burke, D.S.; Harrison, B.A.; Whitmire, R.E.; Nisalak, A. Effect of Temperature on the Vector Efficiency of Aedes aegypti for Dengue 2 Virus. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1987, 36, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Lagouarde, J.P.; Bhattacharya, B.; Crébassol, P.; Gamet, P.; Adlakha, D.; Murthy, C.; Singh, S.; Mishra, M.; Nigam, R.; Raju, P.; et al. Indo-French High-resolution Thermal Infrared Space Mission for Earth Natural Resources Assessment and Monitoring-Concept and Definition of TRISHNA. In Proceedings of the Joint International Workshop on Earth Observations for Agricultural Monitoring, New Delhi, India, 18–20 February 2019. [Google Scholar]
  113. Granero-Belinchon, C.; Michel, A.; Lagouarde, J.P.; Sobrino, J.A.; Briottet, X. Multi-Resolution Study of Thermal Unmixing Techniques over Madrid Urban Area: Case Study of TRISHNA Mission. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Catry, T.; Pottier, A.; Marti, R.; Li, Z.; Roux, E.; Herbreteau, V.; Mangeas, M.; Demagistri, L.; Gurgel, H.; Dessay, N. Apports de la combinaison d’images satellites optique et RADAR dans l’étude des maladies à transmission vectorielle: Cas du paludisme à la frontière Guyane française—Brésil. Confins 2018, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Catry, T.; Li, Z.; Roux, E.; Herbreteau, V.; Gurgel, H.; Mangeas, M.; Seyler, F.; Dessay, N. Wetlands and Malaria in the Amazon: Guidelines for the Use of Synthetic Aperture Radar Remote-Sensing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Wang, J.; Zhou, W.; Qian, Y.; Li, W.; Han, L. Quantifying and characterizing the dynamics of urban greenspace at the patch level: A new approach using object-based image analysis. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 204, 94–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Corbane, C.; Pesaresi, M.; Politis, P.; Syrris, V.; Florczyk, A.J.; Soille, P.; Maffenini, L.; Burger, A.; Vasilev, V.; Rodriguez, D.; et al. Big earth data analytics on Sentinel-1 and Landsat imagery in support to global human settlements mapping. Big Earth Data 2017, 1, 118–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Kuffer, M.; Pfeffer, K.; Sliuzas, R. Slums from Space—15 Years of Slum Mapping Using Remote Sensing. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Wurm, M.; Taubenböck, H. Detecting social groups from space—Assessment of remote sensing-based mapped morphological slums using income data. Remote Sens. Lett. 2018, 9, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Wu, S.S.; Qiu, X.; Wang, L. Population Estimation Methods in GIS and Remote Sensing: A Review. Gisci. Remote Sens. 2005, 42, 80–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Karume, K.; Schmidt, C.; Kundert, K.; Bagula, M.E.; Safina, B.F.; Schomacker, R.; Ganza, D.; Azanga, O.; Nfundiko, C.; Karume, N.; et al. Use of Remote Sensing for Population Number Determination. Open Access J. Sci. Technol. 2017, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Bachofer, F. Assessment of building heights from pléiades satellite imagery for the Nyarugenge sector, Kigali, Rwanda. Rwanda J. 2016, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Peng, F.; Gong, J.; Wang, L.; Wu, H.; Liu, P. A New Stereo Pair Disparity Index (SPDI) for Detecting Built-Up Areas from High-Resolution Stereo Imagery. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Vanhuysse, S.; Grippa, T.; Lennert, M.; Wolff, E.; Idrissa, M. Contribution of nDSM derived from VHR stereo imagery to urban land-cover mapping in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Proceedings of the 2017 Joint Urban Remote Sensing Event (JURSE), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 6–8 March 2017. [Google Scholar]
  125. Chuang, T.W.; Henebry, G.; Kimball, J.; VanRoekel-Patton, D.; Hildreth, M.; Wimberly, M. Satellite microwave remote sensing for environmental modeling of mosquito population dynamics. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 125, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Sharma, K.D.; Mahabir, R.S.; Curtin, K.M.; Sutherland, J.M.; Agard, J.B.; Chadee, D.D. Exploratory space-time analysis of dengue incidence in Trinidad: A retrospective study using travel hubs as dispersal points, 1998–2004. Parasites Vectors 2014, 7, 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Lana, R.M.; da Costa Gomes, M.F.; de Lima, T.F.M.; Honorio, N.A.; Codeco, C.T. The introduction of dengue follows transportation infrastructure changes in the state of Acre, Brazil: A network-based analysis. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, e0006070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Barmak, D.; Dorso, C.; Otero, M. Modelling dengue epidemic spreading with human mobility. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2016, 447, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Adams, B.; Kapan, D.D. Man Bites Mosquito: Understanding the Contribution of Human Movement to Vector-Borne Disease Dynamics. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e6763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  130. Vazquez-Prokopec, G.M.; Stoddard, S.T.; Paz-Soldan, V.; Morrison, A.C.; Elder, J.P.; Kochel, T.J.; Scott, T.W.; Kitron, U. Usefulness of commercially available GPS data-loggers for tracking human movement and exposure to dengue virus. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2009, 8, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  131. Mao, L.; Yin, L.; Song, X.; Mei, S. Mapping intra-urban transmission risk of dengue fever with big hourly cellphone data. Acta Trop. 2016, 162, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Aziz, K.; Tarapiah, S.; Ismail, S.H.; Atalla, S. Smart real-time healthcare monitoring and tracking system using GSM/GPS technologies. In Proceedings of the 2016 3rd MEC International Conference on Big Data and Smart City (ICBDSC), Muscat, Oman, 15–16 March 2016. [Google Scholar]
  133. Rani, S.; Ahmed, S.H.; Shah, S.C. Smart Health: A Novel Paradigm to Control the Chickungunya Virus. IEEE Internet Things J. 2019, 6, 1306–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Kamel Boulos, M.N.; Peng, G.; VoPham, T. An overview of GeoAI applications in health and healthcare. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2019, 18, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Ali, M.; Wagatsuma, Y.; Emch, M.; Breiman, R.F. Use of a geographic information system for defining spatial risk for dengue transmission in Bangladesh: Role for Aedes albopictus in an urban outbreak. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2003, 69, 634–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Al-Raddadi, R.; Alwafi, O.; Shabouni, O.; Akbar, N.; Alkhalawi, M.; Ibrahim, A.; Hussain, R.; Alzahrani, M.; Al Helal, M.; Assiri, A. Seroprevalence of dengue fever and the associated sociodemographic, clinical, and environmental factors in Makkah, Madinah, Jeddah, and Jizan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Acta Trop. 2019, 189, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Araujo, R.V.; Albertini, M.R.; Costa-da Silva, A.L.; Suesdek, L.; Franceschi, N.C.S.; Bastos, N.M.; Katz, G.; Cardoso, V.A.; Castro, B.C.; Capurro, M.L.; et al. São Paulo urban heat islands have a higher incidence of dengue than other urban areas. Braz. J. Infect. Dis. 2015, 19, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Ashford, D.A.; Savage, H.M.; Hajjeh, R.A.; Mcready, J.; Bartholomew, D.M.; Spiegel, R.A.; Vorndam, V.; Clark, G.G.; Gubler, D.G. Outbreak of dengue fever in palau, western pacific: Risk factors for infection. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2003, 69, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Barbosa, G.L.; Lourenço, R.W.U. Análise da distribuição espaço-temporal de dengue e da infestação larvária no município de Tupã, Estado de São Paulo. Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop. 2010, 43, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Barbosa, G.L.; Donalísio, M.R.; Stephan, C.; Lourenço, R.W.; Andrade, V.R.; de Brito Arduino, M.; de Lima, V.L.C. Spatial Distribution of the Risk of Dengue and the Entomological Indicators in Sumaré, State of São Paulo, Brazil. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2014, 8, e2873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  141. Barrera, R.; Delgado, N.; Jiménez, M.; Villalobos, I.; Romero, I. Estratificación de una ciudad hiperendémica en dengue hemorrágico. Rev. Panam. Salud Pública 2000, 8, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  142. Braga, C.; Luna, C.F.; Martelli, C.M.; de Souza, W.V.; Cordeiro, M.T.; Alexander, N.; Albuquerque, M.d.F.P.M.d.; Júnior, J.C.S.; Marques, E.T. Seroprevalence and risk factors for dengue infection in socio-economically distinct areas of Recife, Brazil. Acta Trop. 2010, 113, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  143. Brunkard, J.M.; López, J.L.R.; Ramirez, J.; Cifuentes, E.; Rothenberg, S.J.; Hunsperger, E.A.; Moore, C.G.; Brussolo, R.M.; Villarreal, N.A.; Haddad, B.M. Dengue Fever Seroprevalence and Risk Factors, Texas–Mexico Border, 2004. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2007, 13, 1477–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Cao, Z.; Liu, T.; Li, X.; Wang, J.; Lin, H.; Chen, L.; Wu, Z.; Ma, W. Individual and Interactive Effects of Socio-Ecological Factors on Dengue Fever at Fine Spatial Scale: A Geographical Detector-Based Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Carbajo, A.; Rubio, A.; Viani, M.; Colombo, M. The largest dengue outbreak in Argentina and spatial analyses of dengue cases in relation to a control program in a district with sylvan and urban environments. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2018, 11, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Chadee, D. Dengue cases and Aedes aegypti indices in Trinidad, West Indies. Acta Trop. 2009, 112, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Chen, B.; Yang, J.; Luo, L.; Yang, Z.; Liu, Q. Who Is Vulnerable to Dengue Fever? A Community Survey of the 2014 Outbreak in Guangzhou, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  148. Chen, S.; Whiteman, A.; Li, A.; Rapp, T.; Delmelle, E.; Chen, G.; Brown, C.L.; Robinson, P.; Coffman, M.J.; Janies, D.; et al. An operational machine learning approach to predict mosquito abundance based on socioeconomic and landscape patterns. Landsc. Ecol. 2019, 34, 1295–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Chiu, C.H.; Wen, T.H.; Chien, L.C.; Yu, H.L. A Probabilistic Spatial Dengue Fever Risk Assessment by a Threshold-Based-Quantile Regression Method. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e106334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. Chuang, T.W.; Ng, K.C.; Nguyen, T.; Chaves, L. Epidemiological Characteristics and Space-Time Analysis of the 2015 Dengue Outbreak in the Metropolitan Region of Tainan City, Taiwan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  151. Delmelle, E.; Hagenlocher, M.; Kienberger, S.; Casas, I. A spatial model of socioeconomic and environmental determinants of dengue fever in Cali, Colombia. Acta Trop. 2016, 164, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. De Mattos Almeida, M.C.; Caiaffa, W.T.; Assunção, R.M.; Proietti, F.A. Spatial Vulnerability to Dengue in a Brazilian Urban Area During a 7-Year Surveillance. J. Urban Health 2007, 84, 334–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  153. Dom, N.C.; Ahmad, A.H.; Latif, Z.A.; Ismail, R.; Pradhan, B. Coupling of remote sensing data and environmental-related parameters for dengue transmission risk assessment in Subang Jaya, Malaysia. Geocarto Int. 2013, 28, 258–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Ellis, E.M.; Neatherlin, J.C.; Delorey, M.; Ochieng, M.; Mohamed, A.H.; Mogeni, D.O.; Hunsperger, E.; Patta, S.; Gikunju, S.; Waiboic, L.; et al. A Household Serosurvey to Estimate the Magnitude of a Dengue Outbreak in Mombasa, Kenya, 2013. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2015, 9, e0003733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  155. Escobar-Mesa, J.; Gómez-Dantés, H. Determinantes de la transmisión de dengue en Veracruz: Un abordaje ecológico para su control. Salud Pública México 2003, 45, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  156. Falcon-Lezama, J.A.; Santos-Luna, R.; Roman-Pérez, S.; Martinez-Vega, R.A.; Herrera-Valdez, M.A.; Kuri-Morales, A.F.; Adams, B.; Kuri-Morales, P.A.; Lopez-Cervantes, M.; Ramos-Castañeda, J. Analysis of spatial mobility in subjects from a Dengue endemic urban locality in Morelos State, Mexico. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Garcia, F.J.; de las Llagas, L.A. An examination of the spatial factors of dengue cases in Quezon City, Philippines: A geographic information system (GIS)-based approach, 2005–2008. Acta Med. Philipp. 2011, 45, 53–62. [Google Scholar]
  158. Hapuarachchi, H.C.; Koo, C.; Rajarethinam, J.; Chong, C.S.; Lin, C.; Yap, G.; Liu, L.; Lai, Y.L.; Ooi, P.L.; Cutter, J.; et al. Epidemic resurgence of dengue fever in Singapore in 2013–2014: A virological and entomological perspective. BMC Infect. Dis. 2016, 16, 300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  159. Hayes, J.M.; García-Rivera, E.; Flores-Reyna, R.; Suárez-Rangel, G.; Rodríguez-Mata, T.; Coto-Portillo, R.; Baltrons-Orellana, R.; Mendoza-Rodríguez, E.; Garay, B.F.D.; Jubis-Estrada, J.; et al. Risk factors for infection during a severe dengue outbreak in el Salvador in 2000. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2003, 69, 629–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  160. Hayes, J.M.; Rigau-Pérez, J.G.; Reiter, P.; Effler, P.V.; Pang, L.; Vorndam, V.; Hinten, S.R.; Mark, K.E.; Myers, M.F.; Street, K.; et al. Risk factors for infection during a dengue-1 outbreak in Maui, Hawaii, 2001. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2006, 100, 559–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Heukelbach, J.; Oliveira, F.A.S.D.; Kerr-Pontes, L.R.S.; Feldmeier, H. Risk factors associated with an outbreak of dengue fever in a favela in Fortaleza, north-east Brazil. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2001, 6, 635–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Honório, N.A.; Nogueira, R.M.R.; Codeço, C.T.; Carvalho, M.S.; Cruz, O.G.; de Avelar Figueiredo Mafra Magalhães, M.; de Araújo, J.M.G.; de Araújo, E.S.M.; Gomes, M.Q.; Pinheiro, L.S.; et al. Spatial Evaluation and Modeling of Dengue Seroprevalence and Vector Density in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2009, 3, e545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Huang, C.C.; Tam, T.Y.T.; Chern, Y.R.; Lung, S.C.C.; Chen, N.T.; Wu, C.D. Spatial Clustering of Dengue Fever Incidence and Its Association with Surrounding Greenness. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  164. Kenneson, A.; Beltrán-Ayala, E.; Borbor-Cordova, M.J.; Polhemus, M.E.; Ryan, S.J.; Endy, T.P.; Stewart-Ibarra, A.M. Social-ecological factors and preventive actions decrease the risk of dengue infection at the household-level: Results from a prospective dengue surveillance study in Machala, Ecuador. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, e0006150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Kesetyaningsih, T.W.; Andarini, S.; Sudarto, S.; Pramoedyo, H. Determination of environmental factors affecting dengue incidence in Sleman District, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Afr. J. Infect. Dis. 2018, 12, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Khormi, H.M.; Kumar, L.; Elzahrany, R.A. Modeling spatio-temporal risk changes in the incidence of dengue fever in Saudi Arabia: A geographical information system case study. Geospat. Health 2011, 6, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  167. Kim Lien, P.T.; Duoc, V.T.; Gavotte, L.; Cornillot, E.; Nga, P.T.; Briant, L.; Frutos, R.; Duong, T.N. Role of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus during the 2011 dengue fever epidemics in Hanoi, Vietnam. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2015, 8, 543–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Koopman, J.S.; Prevots, D.R.; Mann, M.A.V.; Dantes, H.G.; Aquino, M.L.Z.; Longini, I.M.; Amor, J.S. Determinants and Predictors of Dengue Infection in Mexico. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1991, 133, 1168–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Koyadun, S.; Butraporn, P.; Kittayapong, P. Ecologic and Sociodemographic Risk Determinants for Dengue Transmission in Urban Areas in Thailand. Interdiscip. Perspect. Infect. Dis. 2012, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Li, S.; Tao, H.; Xu, Y. Abiotic Determinants to the Spatial Dynamics of Dengue Fever in Guangzhou. Asia Pac. J. Public Health 2013, 25, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Li, Q.; Cao, W.; Ren, H.; Ji, Z.; Jiang, H. Spatiotemporal responses of dengue fever transmission to the road network in an urban area. Acta Trop. 2018, 183, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Lippi, C.; Stewart-Ibarra, A.M.; Muñoz, C.; Borbor-Cordova, M.J.; Mejía, R.; Rivero, K.; Castillo, K.; Cárdenas, W.B.; Ryan, S.J. The Social and Spatial Ecology of Dengue Presence and Burden during an Outbreak in Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2012. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  173. Liu, K.; Zhu, Y.; Xia, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, X.; Huang, J.; Nie, E.; Jing, Q.; Wang, G.; Yang, Z.; et al. Dynamic spatiotemporal analysis of indigenous dengue fever at street-level in Guangzhou city, China. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2018, 12, e0006318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  174. Mahmood, S.; Irshad, A.; Nasir, J.M.; Sharif, F.; Farooqi, S.H. Spatiotemporal analysis of dengue outbreaks in Samanabad town, Lahore metropolitan area, using geospatial techniques. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019, 191, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Mala, S.; Jat, M.K. Implications of meteorological and physiographical parameters on dengue fever occurrences in Delhi. Sci. Total. Environ. 2019, 650, 2267–2283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Martínez-Bello, D.A.; López-Quílez, A.; Torres Prieto, A. Relative risk estimation of dengue disease at small spatial scale. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2017, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. McBride, W.J.H.; Mullner, H.; Muller, R.; Labrooy, J.; Wronski, I. Determinants of dengue 2 infection among residents of Charters Towers, Queensland, Australia. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1998, 148, 1111–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Mena, N.; Troyo, A.; Bonilla-Carrión, R.; Calderón-Arguedas, O. Factores asociados con la incidencia de dengue en Costa Rica. Rev. Panam. Salud Pública 2011, 29, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  179. Meza-Ballesta, A.; Gónima, L. The influence of climate and vegetation cover on the occurrence of dengue cases (2001–2010). Rev. Salud Pública 2014, 16, 293–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  180. Mondini, A.; Chiaravalloti-Neto, F. Spatial correlation of incidence of dengue with socioeconomic, demographic and environmental variables in a Brazilian city. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 393, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Ogashawara, I.; Li, L.; Moreno-Madriñán, M.J. Spatial-Temporal Assessment of Environmental Factors Related to Dengue Outbreaks in São Paulo, Brazil. GeoHealth 2019, 3, 202–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Pessanha, J.E.M.; Caiaffa, W.T.; Kroon, E.G.; Proietti, F.A. Dengue em três distritos sanitários de Belo Horizonte, Brasil: Inquérito soroepidemiológico de base populacional, 2006 a 2007. Rev. Panam. Salud Pública 2010, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Prayitno, A.; Taurel, A.F.; Nealon, J.; Satari, H.I.; Karyanti, M.R.; Sekartini, R.; Soedjatmiko, S.; Gunardi, H.; Medise, B.E.; Sasmono, R.T.; et al. Dengue seroprevalence and force of primary infection in a representative population of urban dwelling Indonesian children. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, e0005621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  184. Qi, X.; Wang, Y.; Li, Y.; Meng, Y.; Chen, Q.; Ma, J.; Gao, G.F. The Effects of Socioeconomic and Environmental Factors on the Incidence of Dengue Fever in the Pearl River Delta, China, 2013. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2015, 9, e0004159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Qu, Y.; Shi, X.; Wang, Y.; Li, R.; Lu, L.; Liu, Q. Effects of socio-economic and environmental factors on the spatial heterogeneity of dengue fever investigated at a fine scale. Geospat. Health 2018, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  186. Reiter, P.; Lathrop, S.; Bunning, M.; Biggerstaff, B.; Singer, D.; Tiwari, T.; Baber, L.; Amador, M.; Thirion, J.; Hayes, J.; et al. Texas Lifestyle Limits Transmission of Dengue Virus. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2003, 9, 86–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Ren, H.; Wu, W.; Li, T.; Yang, Z. Urban villages as transfer stations for dengue fever epidemic: A case study in the Guangzhou, China. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2019, 13, e0007350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  188. Rinawan, F.; Tateishi, R.; Raksanagara, A.; Agustian, D.; Alsaaideh, B.; Natalia, Y.; Raksanagara, A. Pitch and Flat Roof Factors’ Association with Spatiotemporal Patterns of Dengue Disease Analysed Using Pan-Sharpened Worldview 2 Imagery. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2015, 4, 2586–2603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  189. Rodriguez-Figueroa, L.; Rigau-Perez, J.G.; Suarez, E.L.; Reiter, P. Risk Factors for Dengue Infection during an Outbreak in Yanes, Puerto Rico in 1991. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1995, 52, 496–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Rotela, C.; Fouque, F.; Lamfri, M.; Sabatier, P.; Introini, V.; Zaidenberg, M.; Scavuzzo, C. Space–time analysis of the dengue spreading dynamics in the 2004 Tartagal outbreak, Northern Argentina. Acta Trop. 2007, 103, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  191. Sarfraz, M.S.; Tripathi, N.K.; Kitamoto, A. Near real-time characterisation of urban environments: A holistic approach for monitoring dengue fever risk areas. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2014, 7, 916–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Seidahmed, O.M.; Lu, D.; Chong, C.S.; Ng, L.C.; Eltahir, E.A. Patterns of Urban Housing Shape Dengue Distribution in Singapore at Neighborhood and Country Scales. GeoHealth 2018, 2, 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Stewart-Ibarra, A.; Muñoz, A.; Ryan, S.; Ayala, E.; Borbor-Cordova, M.; Finkelstein, J.L.; Mejía, R.; Ordoñez, T.; Recalde-Coronel, G.; Rivero, K. Spatiotemporal clustering, climate periodicity, and social-ecological risk factors for dengue during an outbreak in Machala, Ecuador, in 2010. BMC Infect. Dis. 2014, 14, 610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  194. Sulaiman, S.; Pawanchee, Z.A.; Arifin, Z.; Wahab, A. Relationship between Breteau and house indices and cases of dengue/dengue hemorrhagic fever in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1996, 12, 494–496. [Google Scholar]
  195. Teixeira, M.D.G.; Barreto, M.L.; Costa, M.D.C.N.; Ferreira, L.D.A.; Vasconcelos, P.F.C.; Cairncross, S. Dynamics of dengue virus circulation: A silent epidemic in a complex urban area. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2002, 7, 757–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  196. Teixeira, T.R.; Medronho, A.R. Socio-demographic factors and the dengue fever epidemic in 2002 in the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Cad. Saúde Pública 2008, 24, 2160–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  197. Telle, O.; Vaguet, A.; Yadav, N.K.; Lefebvre, B.; Daudé, E.; Paul, R.E.; Cebeillac, A.; Nagpal, B.N. The Spread of Dengue in an Endemic Urban Milieu—The Case of Delhi, India. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0146539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  198. Teurlai, M.; Menkès, C.E.; Cavarero, V.; Degallier, N.; Descloux, E.; Grangeon, J.P.; Guillaumot, L.; Libourel, T.; Lucio, P.S.; Mathieu-Daudé, F.; et al. Socio-economic and Climate Factors Associated with Dengue Fever Spatial Heterogeneity: A Worked Example in New Caledonia. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2015, 9, e0004211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  199. Thammapalo, S.; Chongsuvivatwong, V.; Geater, A.; Dueravee, M. Environmental factors and incidence of dengue fever and dengue haemorrhagic fever in an urban area, Southern Thailand. Epidemiol. Infect. 2008, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Tian, H.; Huang, S.; Zhou, S.; Bi, P.; Yang, Z.; Li, X.; Chen, L.; Cazelles, B.; Yang, J.; Luo, L.; et al. Surface water areas significantly impacted 2014 dengue outbreaks in Guangzhou, China. Environ. Res. 2016, 150, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  201. Tiong, V.; Abd-Jamil, J.; Zan, M.H.; Abu-Bakar, R.S.; Ew, C.L.; Jafar, F.L.; Nellis, S.; Fauzi, R.; AbuBakar, S. Evaluation of land cover and prevalence of dengue in Malaysia. Trop. Biomed. 2015, 32, 587–597. [Google Scholar]
  202. Toan, D.T.T.; Hoat, L.N.; Hu, W.; Wright, P.; Martens, P. Risk factors associated with an outbreak of dengue fever/dengue haemorrhagic fever in Hanoi, Vietnam. Epidemiol. Infect. 2015, 143, 1594–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  203. Troyo, A.; Fuller, D.O.; Calderón-Arguedas, O.; Solano, M.E.; Beier, J.C. Urban structure and dengue incidence in Puntarenas, Costa Rica. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 2009, 30, 265–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Van Benthem, B.H.; Vanwambeke, S.O.; Khantikul, N.; Burghoorn-Maas, C.; Panart, K.; Oskam, L.; Lambin, E.F.; Somboon, P. Spatial patterns of and risk factors for seropositivity for dengue infection. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2005, 72, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  205. Vanwambeke, S.O.; van Benthem, B.H.B.; Khantikul, N.; Burghoorn-Maas, C.; Panart, K.; Oskam, L.; Lambin, E.F.; Somboon, P. Multi-level analyses of spatial and temporal determinants for dengue infection. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2006, 5, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  206. Wanti, W.; Yudhastuti, R.; Notobroto, H.B.; Subekti, S.; Sila, O.; Kristina, R.H.; Dwirahmadi, F. Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever and House Conditions in Kupang City, East Nusa Tenggara Province. Kesmas-Natl. Public Health J. 2019, 13, 176–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  207. Waterman, S.H.; Novak, R.J.; Sather, G.E.; Bailey, R.E.; Rios, I.; Gubler, D.J. Dengue Transmission in Two Puerto Rican Communities in 1982. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1985, 34, 625–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Wen, T.H.; Lin, M.H.; Fang, C.T. Population Movement and Vector-Borne Disease Transmission: Differentiating Spatial—Temporal Diffusion Patterns of Commuting and Noncommuting Dengue Cases. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2012, 102, 1026–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Wong, L.P.; AbuBakar, S.; Chinna, K. Community Knowledge, Health Beliefs, Practices and Experiences Related to Dengue Fever and Its Association with IgG Seropositivity. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2014, 8, e2789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  210. Yue, Y.; Sun, J.; Liu, X.; Ren, D.; Liu, Q.; Xiao, X.; Lu, L. Spatial analysis of dengue fever and exploration of its environmental and socio-economic risk factors using ordinary least squares: A case study in five districts of Guangzhou City, China, 2014. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2018, 75, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  211. Yung, C.F.; Chan, S.P.; Thein, T.L.; Chai, S.C.; Leo, Y.S. Epidemiological risk factors for adult dengue in Singapore: An 8-year nested test negative case control study. BMC Infect. Dis. 2016, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  212. Zellweger, R.M.; Cano, J.; Mangeas, M.; Taglioni, F.; Mercier, A.; Despinoy, M.; Menkès, C.E.; Dupont-Rouzeyrol, M.; Nikolay, B.; Teurlai, M. Socioeconomic and environmental determinants of dengue transmission in an urban setting: An ecological study in Nouméa, New Caledonia. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, e0005471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Stages of systematic search to retrieve included article to our four criteria, following the PRISMA statement [43].
Figure 1. Stages of systematic search to retrieve included article to our four criteria, following the PRISMA statement [43].
Remotesensing 12 00932 g001
Figure 2. Method used to map the co-occurrence relationship between the self-defined tags, here keywords, for each of the articles. Keywords are specific self-defined tags, which may here refer to: landscape factors (e.g., “Urban Heat Island”), structuring terms (in bold, e.g., “Urban typology” or “large administrative-level”), or nature of the relationship (in color, e.g., “positive”). We added a tag, called Nb (number), which helps to identify the id number of the included article (here 3 of [n = 78]).
Figure 2. Method used to map the co-occurrence relationship between the self-defined tags, here keywords, for each of the articles. Keywords are specific self-defined tags, which may here refer to: landscape factors (e.g., “Urban Heat Island”), structuring terms (in bold, e.g., “Urban typology” or “large administrative-level”), or nature of the relationship (in color, e.g., “positive”). We added a tag, called Nb (number), which helps to identify the id number of the included article (here 3 of [n = 78]).
Remotesensing 12 00932 g002
Figure 3. Top: localization and characteristics of the epidemiological data sets of the 78 articles of the review. We indicate the type of sources (serological surveys or passive notification system) and the temporal range associated with the dengue data. Bottom: localization and characteristics of the landscape data sets of the 78 articles of the review. We indicate the type of sources: questionnaire surveys, GIS, Remote sensing data, and the availability of entomological data (*).
Figure 3. Top: localization and characteristics of the epidemiological data sets of the 78 articles of the review. We indicate the type of sources (serological surveys or passive notification system) and the temporal range associated with the dengue data. Bottom: localization and characteristics of the landscape data sets of the 78 articles of the review. We indicate the type of sources: questionnaire surveys, GIS, Remote sensing data, and the availability of entomological data (*).
Remotesensing 12 00932 g003
Figure 4. Keywords co-occurrences network associated to the 78 included articles, clustered by data sources (left), and year of publication (right). Nodes without labeling refer to landscape factors, which are detailed in the following network and sections. Nodes in italics refer to the type of the data acquisition sources
Figure 4. Keywords co-occurrences network associated to the 78 included articles, clustered by data sources (left), and year of publication (right). Nodes without labeling refer to landscape factors, which are detailed in the following network and sections. Nodes in italics refer to the type of the data acquisition sources
Remotesensing 12 00932 g004
Figure 5. Co-occurrences network mapping of the self-defined keywords related to the articles using remote sensing images (top) and Geographic Information System (GIS) (bottom) to produce the landscape factors.
Figure 5. Co-occurrences network mapping of the self-defined keywords related to the articles using remote sensing images (top) and Geographic Information System (GIS) (bottom) to produce the landscape factors.
Remotesensing 12 00932 g005
Figure 6. Co-occurrence network mapping of the self-defined keywords related to the article using survey questionnaires to produce the landscape factors. We indicate in orange those factors that could also be produced through remote sensing techniques.
Figure 6. Co-occurrence network mapping of the self-defined keywords related to the article using survey questionnaires to produce the landscape factors. We indicate in orange those factors that could also be produced through remote sensing techniques.
Remotesensing 12 00932 g006
Figure 7. Co-occurrences network mapping of the self-defined keywords related to the landscape factors considered at household-level.
Figure 7. Co-occurrences network mapping of the self-defined keywords related to the landscape factors considered at household-level.
Remotesensing 12 00932 g007
Figure 8. Co-occurrences network mapping of the self-defined keywords related to the landscape factors considered at neighborhood-level.
Figure 8. Co-occurrences network mapping of the self-defined keywords related to the landscape factors considered at neighborhood-level.
Remotesensing 12 00932 g008
Figure 9. Co-occurrences network mapping of the self-defined keywords related to the landscape factors considered at small administrative-level.
Figure 9. Co-occurrences network mapping of the self-defined keywords related to the landscape factors considered at small administrative-level.
Remotesensing 12 00932 g009
Figure 10. Co-occurrences network mapping of the self-defined keywords related to the landscape factors considered at large-administrative and city-level.
Figure 10. Co-occurrences network mapping of the self-defined keywords related to the landscape factors considered at large-administrative and city-level.
Remotesensing 12 00932 g010
Figure 11. Comparison between pixel size (x axis, in log scale) and typical dimension of geographical area used to perform relationships with dengue cases (Y axis, in qualitative dimension).
Figure 11. Comparison between pixel size (x axis, in log scale) and typical dimension of geographical area used to perform relationships with dengue cases (Y axis, in qualitative dimension).
Remotesensing 12 00932 g011
Table 1. Structuring of the data extracted from the articles on the publication meta-data and the geographical context. First line (id: 3) is given as an example. Please refer to the annex-table 1 for the whole dataset ([n = 78] articles).
Table 1. Structuring of the data extracted from the articles on the publication meta-data and the geographical context. First line (id: 3) is given as an example. Please refer to the annex-table 1 for the whole dataset ([n = 78] articles).
IDPublication Meta-DataGeographical Context
AuthorDateTitleJournalCountryCityGeographical Unit
of Spatial Analysis
3Araujo2015Sao Paulo urban heat islands have a higher incidence of dengue than other urban areasThe Brazilian Journal of Infectious DiseasesBrazilSao PauloDistricts
Table 2. Structuring of the data extracted from the articles on the epidemiological context. First line (id: 3) is given as an example. Please refer to the annex-table 2 for the whole dataset ([n = 78] articles). In last column, we indicate if vectors are only mentioned (M) or observed (O) in the study.
Table 2. Structuring of the data extracted from the articles on the epidemiological context. First line (id: 3) is given as an example. Please refer to the annex-table 2 for the whole dataset ([n = 78] articles). In last column, we indicate if vectors are only mentioned (M) or observed (O) in the study.
IDEpidemiological Context
Start–End YearsDATA SourceDiagnostic MethodDENV-TypeNumber of CasesSpatial VariationVectors Mention
32010–2011Passive notification
(COVISA)
IgG (ELISA)NAN = 7415HeterogeneousAedes aegypti (M)
Table 3. Structuring of the data extracted from the articles on the landscape factor production and the dengue-landscape relationship. First line (id: 3) is given as an example. Please refer to the annex-table 3 for the whole dataset ([n = 78] articles).
Table 3. Structuring of the data extracted from the articles on the landscape factor production and the dengue-landscape relationship. First line (id: 3) is given as an example. Please refer to the annex-table 3 for the whole dataset ([n = 78] articles).
IDLandscape Factors
Production
Dengue-Landscape
Relationship
Data SourceData GroupData Sub-GroupLandscape FactorsThree-valued
Interpretation
Potential Proxy of
(at Unit Level)
Statistical
Method
3Landsat 5 TM imageLand coverSurface TemperatureUrban heat islands+Vectors resting sites and virus replication (at large-admin level)Multiple cluster analysis
Table 4. Landscape factors interpreted as proxies of different processes involved in dengue transmission according to the geographical level of data aggregation.
Table 4. Landscape factors interpreted as proxies of different processes involved in dengue transmission according to the geographical level of data aggregation.
Landscape FactorsProxies ofGeographic Level
Housing characteristics: Animal water pans, Households with water supply, regular water supply, water containers, sewage system, garbage collectionAedes breeding or resting site Household level
Entomological observation: Larvae-positive habitats, Breeding, discarded, infested discarded plastic containers, Discarded tire casings, Infested discarded cans, uncovered water containers
Urban tyopology: Slum-housing
Land cover and use: tree height
Topography: shade
Housing characteristics: Screens on windows, absence of air conditioning, Home with birds, house floors, Floor of principal living, Number of house windows, screens for house windows, yard/open space, shanty, Animals on the property, Living near open sewers, Bednets Exposure to
Aedes bite
Housing type: Apartment, house, old flats, sheds, one storey homes
Entomological observation: Presence of adult Aedes albopictus and Ae. aegypti, Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus population density, % of houses with larva on the premises, Number of female Aedes aegypti per person, Mosquito presence in the house
, Breteau and house indexes Construction material: Wood, concrete, stone and concrete construction
Urban typology: Temporary construction, % of village area with vegetation
Distance of house to vegetation, to river, Distance to waterbodies, % of bare soil
in 200 m-buffer zone
Land cover land use: Distance house to vegetation, to river, Distance to waterbodies, % of bare soil in 200 m-buffer
Human Long-distance mobilityHuman-virus
mobility
Entomological observation: Larvae abundance, Breteau Index, Premise index, Mosquito abundance, Aedes Adults indicatorsAedes presence, breeding
or resting site
Neighborhood level
Housing type: Mean size of pitched and flatted roof.
Urban typology: Slum housing
Infrastructure level: Density of the urban drainage network, Access to piped water
Land cover land use: Taro farming, Tasseled cap vegetation, wetness, brightness, vegetation coverage
Housing type: Multi-floor building, Single story attached and detached building Human-Aedes encounter
Construction material: Brick-made, wood houses
Urban typology: Dense populated areas surrounded by vegetation,
Ratios on residential, industrial, commercial areas, slums-unplanned areas, Distances to neighboring houses % of developed land, distance to roads
Land cover land use: Distance from forested areas, % of vegetation, % of water areas, % of bare soil in 200 m-buffer
Infrastructure level: Short distance from hospital. Human household density, Commercial activity with human movementsHuman-virus
mobility
Neighborhood level
Housing characteristics: Gutter rainAedes presence, breeding
or resting site
Small administrative level
Infrastructure level: % of households with no piped water, without systematic or inefficient garbage collection
Topography: Street orientation to the wind
Land cover: NDVI, VFC, Water-body areas, Agriculture, Wetland, Urban heat islands, % of tree cover
Housing characteristics: Poor housing condition, houses without windows screens Human-Aedes encounter
Housing type: Independent, mixed, unoccupied houses
Urban typology: % of urban villages, of single and empty houses, of building, of slums. Ratios on residential, industrial, commercial areas, Informal, deprived or wealthy areas, house density, Markets place, Landmarks, Urbanisation level
Land cover: Open areas, Vacant ground
Infrastructure level: Human density, Road density, Use of public transportationHuman-virus
mobility
Infrastructure level: Drainage Human-Aedes encounter Large administrative level
Land cover: Urban heat islands, NDVI, % of shrubs, wet grassland, water area, paddy field
Urban typology: Quality of neighborhood, % of construction area Aedes presence, breeding
or resting site
Infrastructure level: Public services availability

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marti, R.; Li, Z.; Catry, T.; Roux, E.; Mangeas, M.; Handschumacher, P.; Gaudart, J.; Tran, A.; Demagistri, L.; Faure, J.-F.; et al. A Mapping Review on Urban Landscape Factors of Dengue Retrieved from Earth Observation Data, GIS Techniques, and Survey Questionnaires. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 932. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12060932

AMA Style

Marti R, Li Z, Catry T, Roux E, Mangeas M, Handschumacher P, Gaudart J, Tran A, Demagistri L, Faure J-F, et al. A Mapping Review on Urban Landscape Factors of Dengue Retrieved from Earth Observation Data, GIS Techniques, and Survey Questionnaires. Remote Sensing. 2020; 12(6):932. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12060932

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marti, Renaud, Zhichao Li, Thibault Catry, Emmanuel Roux, Morgan Mangeas, Pascal Handschumacher, Jean Gaudart, Annelise Tran, Laurent Demagistri, Jean-François Faure, and et al. 2020. "A Mapping Review on Urban Landscape Factors of Dengue Retrieved from Earth Observation Data, GIS Techniques, and Survey Questionnaires" Remote Sensing 12, no. 6: 932. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12060932

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop