The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Assessing the impact of building footprint dataset choice for health programme planning: a case study of indoor residual spraying (IRS) in Zambia

Assessing the impact of building footprint dataset choice for health programme planning: a case study of indoor residual spraying (IRS) in Zambia
Assessing the impact of building footprint dataset choice for health programme planning: a case study of indoor residual spraying (IRS) in Zambia
Background
The increasing availability globally of building footprint datasets has brought new opportunities to support a geographic approach to health programme planning. This is particularly acute in settings with high disease burdens but limited geospatial data available to support targeted planning. The comparability of building footprint datasets has recently started to be explored, but the impact of utilising a particular dataset in analyses to support decision making for health programme planning has not been studied. In this study, we quantify the impact of utilising four different building footprint datasets in analyses to support health programme planning, with an example of malaria vector control initiatives in Zambia.

Methods
Using the example of planning indoor residual spraying (IRS) campaigns in Zambia, we identify priority locations for deployment of this intervention based on criteria related to the area, proximity and counts of building footprints per settlement. We apply the same criteria to four different building footprint datasets and quantify the count and geographic variability in the priority settlements that are identified.

Results
We show that nationally the count of potential priority settlements for IRS varies by over 230% with different building footprint datasets, considering a minimum threshold of 25 sprayable buildings per settlement. Differences are most pronounced for rural settlements, indicating that the choice of dataset may bias the selection to include or exclude settlements, and consequently population groups, in some areas.

Conclusions
The results of this study show that the choice of building footprint dataset can have a considerable impact on the potential settlements identified for IRS, in terms of (i) their location and count, and (ii) the count of building footprints within priority settlements. The choice of dataset potentially has substantial implications for campaign planning, implementation and coverage assessment. Given the magnitude of the differences observed, further work should more broadly assess the sensitivity of health programme planning metrics to different building footprint datasets, and across a range of geographic contexts and health campaign types.
Building footprints, Geospatial, Malaria, Microplanning, Satellite imagery
1476-072X
Chamberlain, Heather
cb939de7-ac47-440e-aeb8-a2e36c110785
Pollard, Derek
8b69cc14-716d-4d5b-9d66-7945cfdd4d0c
Winters, Anna
b672209a-24b2-421c-a294-ac8b6ffb2a26
Renn, Silvia
2b87eade-8774-477f-9f3e-fbdd5d62cf0e
Borkovska, Olena
3db7bf22-0c61-4c7c-9197-6910d8268b9b
Musuka, Chisenga Abel
cc21d645-579a-48ac-8f20-70c39d95b01d
Membele, Garikai
05da7dc6-599d-4f2a-b6e5-7be7cddfec67
Lazar, Attila
d7f835e7-1e3d-4742-b366-af19cf5fc881
Tatem, Andrew
6c6de104-a5f9-46e0-bb93-a1a7c980513e
Chamberlain, Heather
cb939de7-ac47-440e-aeb8-a2e36c110785
Pollard, Derek
8b69cc14-716d-4d5b-9d66-7945cfdd4d0c
Winters, Anna
b672209a-24b2-421c-a294-ac8b6ffb2a26
Renn, Silvia
2b87eade-8774-477f-9f3e-fbdd5d62cf0e
Borkovska, Olena
3db7bf22-0c61-4c7c-9197-6910d8268b9b
Musuka, Chisenga Abel
cc21d645-579a-48ac-8f20-70c39d95b01d
Membele, Garikai
05da7dc6-599d-4f2a-b6e5-7be7cddfec67
Lazar, Attila
d7f835e7-1e3d-4742-b366-af19cf5fc881
Tatem, Andrew
6c6de104-a5f9-46e0-bb93-a1a7c980513e

Chamberlain, Heather, Pollard, Derek, Winters, Anna, Renn, Silvia, Borkovska, Olena, Musuka, Chisenga Abel, Membele, Garikai, Lazar, Attila and Tatem, Andrew (2025) Assessing the impact of building footprint dataset choice for health programme planning: a case study of indoor residual spraying (IRS) in Zambia. International Journal of Health Geographics, 24 (1), [13]. (doi:10.1186/s12942-025-00398-7).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background
The increasing availability globally of building footprint datasets has brought new opportunities to support a geographic approach to health programme planning. This is particularly acute in settings with high disease burdens but limited geospatial data available to support targeted planning. The comparability of building footprint datasets has recently started to be explored, but the impact of utilising a particular dataset in analyses to support decision making for health programme planning has not been studied. In this study, we quantify the impact of utilising four different building footprint datasets in analyses to support health programme planning, with an example of malaria vector control initiatives in Zambia.

Methods
Using the example of planning indoor residual spraying (IRS) campaigns in Zambia, we identify priority locations for deployment of this intervention based on criteria related to the area, proximity and counts of building footprints per settlement. We apply the same criteria to four different building footprint datasets and quantify the count and geographic variability in the priority settlements that are identified.

Results
We show that nationally the count of potential priority settlements for IRS varies by over 230% with different building footprint datasets, considering a minimum threshold of 25 sprayable buildings per settlement. Differences are most pronounced for rural settlements, indicating that the choice of dataset may bias the selection to include or exclude settlements, and consequently population groups, in some areas.

Conclusions
The results of this study show that the choice of building footprint dataset can have a considerable impact on the potential settlements identified for IRS, in terms of (i) their location and count, and (ii) the count of building footprints within priority settlements. The choice of dataset potentially has substantial implications for campaign planning, implementation and coverage assessment. Given the magnitude of the differences observed, further work should more broadly assess the sensitivity of health programme planning metrics to different building footprint datasets, and across a range of geographic contexts and health campaign types.

Text
s12942-025-00398-7 (2) - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (4MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 12 April 2025
Published date: 24 May 2025
Additional Information: Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2025.
Keywords: Building footprints, Geospatial, Malaria, Microplanning, Satellite imagery

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 502091
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/502091
ISSN: 1476-072X
PURE UUID: a690d05e-4ae9-45e5-88f6-5837d95dc8d0
ORCID for Heather Chamberlain: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-0828-6974
ORCID for Attila Lazar: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-2033-2013
ORCID for Andrew Tatem: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-7270-941X

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 16 Jun 2025 16:50
Last modified: 22 Aug 2025 02:08

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Derek Pollard
Author: Anna Winters
Author: Silvia Renn
Author: Olena Borkovska
Author: Chisenga Abel Musuka
Author: Garikai Membele
Author: Attila Lazar ORCID iD
Author: Andrew Tatem ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×