A participatory process to develop improvements to children’s shared areas

Um processo participativo de desenvolvimento de melhorias em áreas comuns de uso infantil

Abstract

Research which evaluates Social Housing (SH) in Brazil often points out unfavorable conditions expressed by residents, in terms of the residential unit and common spaces, as well as surroundings. Participatory processes to improve projects are considered essential for political, social and economic reasons, and user values need to be prioritized. Processes to develop improvements for existing SH, that include residents as protagonists, with active participation, may guide more effective actions. However, participatory processes for home and public area renovations require procedures to effectively achieve their technical objectives and meet the needs and desires of their residents with feasibility of implementation. This research developed a case study with the participation of residents of a small SH project in Campinas - SP, with a specific focus on improvements for the children's leisure areas. The study involved the public targeted, children living in the analyzed SH complex, in defining their leisure space through dynamics and playful activities. Qualitative results are presented of this participatory process, involving children. Knowledge gained is methodological, with lessons learned for the planning and development of participatory co-design projects with children.

Keywords:
Participative process; Social housing; Perception; Upgrading.

Resumo

Pesquisas que avaliam Habitação de Interesse Social (HIS) no Brasil em geral apontam condições desfavoráveis expressas pelos moradores em relação à sua moradia, em termos de unidade habitacional e espaços comuns, assim como seu entorno. Processos participativos para melhorias são considerados essenciais por razões políticas, sociais e econômicas, priorizando os valores do usuário. Considera-se que o desenvolvimento de processos de introdução de melhorias de HIS existentes, no qual o morador é protagonista,participando ativamente, pode orientar ações efetivas. No entanto, processos participativos com foco em melhorias residenciais e em áreas comuns necessitam de procedimentos que de fato atinjam objetivos técnicos e atendam as necessidades e desejos dos moradores, priorizando a viabilidade de execução. A pesquisa desenvolveu um estudo de caso com participação de moradores de um conjunto habitacional em Campinas, SP, com foco específico na área recreativa de uso infantil. O estudo envolveu o público-alvo, crianças moradoras do conjunto habitacional, na definição do seu espaço de lazer, a partir de dinâmicas e atividades lúdicas. São apresentados resultados qualitativos deste processo participativo, envolvendo as crianças. O conhecimento adquirido é metodológico, com lições aprendidas para o planejamento e desenvolvimento de projetosparticipativos de co-design com crianças.

Palavras-chave:
Processo participativo; Habitação de Interesse Social.

Introduction

Social Housing (SH) construction in Brazil focuses mainly on building new residential units. This implies that once-built housing developments rarely are upgraded or properly maintained, even though residents often point to unfavorable housing conditions, in terms of the individual units and common spaces (Kowaltowski et al., 2018). In most SH complexes maintenance, and the introduction of improvements are essential. Also, over time new demands and needs, both on the housing scale and in common-use areas will emerge. Improving already consolidated facilities can have positive social, political and economic benefits, and directly deliver value to users and therefore should be part of public policies (Stenberg, 2018).

Such policies should develop design processes as tools to guide more effective actions to improve the existing SH stock but with the active participation of those affected, the residents and the various agents in planning and executing refurbishments (Van Geenhuizen, 2018). By involving the various agents, with user-centered actions, problems, priorities, solutions and technologies can be identified and better solutions can be found. Greater engagement by all involved and affected is essential to gain satisfaction with results. Although participatory processes have been advocated for a long time, they are not common in refurbishment projects in Brazil (Siqueira-Gay; Sánchez, 2019).

This article describes an initiative developed as part of a larger project called “User-Valued Innovations for Social Housing Upgrading through Trans-Atlantic Living Labs” (uVITAL). This project investigated the use of Living Labs in SH upgrading processes through four case studies in Brazil, the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom. This proposal had the goal to design a SH upgrading protocol, using the social innovation of Living Labs (LLs), with the application of visualization enhancement tools and platforms, to enable a detailed understanding of stakeholders’ values and needs and to observe their perception of problems and opportunities as well as to mediate the decision-making process through new and more effective bridging strategies. Emphasis was on stakeholders, especially users, who should be able to define their values and visualize, in their environment, how domestic life is linked to larger social and environmental issues. Also, mediation strategies and tools emphasizing the visualization of problems and solutions to support decision-making were considered essential tools to advance, capture and incorporate user values in SH upgrading ‘briefs’ and support decision-making processes for the common good.

The Brazilian case is located in the city of Campinas, in the State of São Paulo, and the place is commonly known as Quilombo. Several activities were organized in this small housing complex involving residents, the local authorities and researchers. In this article, we concentrate on the play areas of the project. Both adults and children were involved in the participatory planning activities of these common semi-public spaces. Two design dynamics with children are described and evaluated.

Theoretical background

A participatory design process which addresses technical decisions based on scientific knowledge should involve users to attain designs that offer more suitable and comfortable spaces to residents (Del Rio; Iwata; Sanoff, 2000). Joining forces and shared learning can lead to more reliable results, as users will bring their experiences to the decision-making process and professionals can better incorporate specific demands and particularities of a context (Luck, 2007; Woolner, 2009).

There is a vast literature on participatory planning, which shows that the meaning of the word ‘participation’ is not straightforward forward and the outcomes of participatory and co-design processes depend on the interpretation and translation into practice of the term (Cele; Van der Burgt, 2015). Often participatory project initiatives are a means of validating decisions made by planning authorities instead of focusing on the empowerment of end-users and effectively giving these voices (Jupp, 2008). Also one should not assume, as Horelli (1998) points out, that ‘the mere fact of an initiative being undertaken in itself is a statement of success’.

LLs have been advocated as an approach to overcome some of the difficulties of participatory planning processes. LLs are collaborative processes, where innovative solutions are developed in real-life situations, with all stakeholders actively participating in solving problems (Leminen; Westerlund; Nyström, 2012). LLs are also considered a means to reaching out to different parties, promoting partnerships between researchers, and public and private agents to generate value for everyone involved (Bergvall-Kåreborn; Holst; Ståhlbröst, 2009). The user, being the main actor, has a key role in all stages of LLs, participating from the start to identify problems and needs as well as to develop and test solutions (Tang; Hämäläinen, 2014). LLs are said to facilitate a horizontal, non-hierarchical structure, which enables creative input and the exchange of knowledge between all parties (Steen; Van Bueren, 2017). Thus LLs work as a problem-solving tool where conflictual interests may exist and are recommended to tackle complex problems (Claude et al., 2017).

To enable collective participation, workshops and other activities, such as focus groups and planning discussions are adopted as tools in LL planning (Baek; Lee, 2008; Villa; Ornstein, 2016). Brainstorming and prototyping may be used as a strategy to demonstrate and visualize ideas for all participants (Read et al., 2002). Focus groups are particularly suitable for participatory design processes both for data collection and decision-making (Elali; Pinheiro, 2016; Krueger; Casey, 2000). Focus groups have their own dynamics and apply specific tools to generate ideas and discussions. The structured approach of focus groups and the methodological application of tools are essential to achieve comprehensive results (Morgan, 1997).

Traditional methods for user participation are however not always as effective when children are involved. Focus group dynamics are generally developed for adult groups. However, including children in participatory processes allows other actors to see the problems from the children's point of view (Baek; Lee, 2008).

To engage children in participatory activities, specific characteristics of children, and their age groups need to be considered. Also, levels of the cognitive ability, sociability, communication and motor-sensory capacity of children and their social standing or vulnerability need consideration for participatory planning activities (Baek; Lee, 2008). Cele and Van der Burgt (2015) showed in a study on participatory planning processes that there is an impressive body of research on methods and practices for children’s participation in planning practice, but that how such processes are executed is crucial to achieve efficient implementations and positive results for the children themselves. This implies that support tools need careful development and selection with effective application (Deliberador; Kowaltowski, 2018).

Games in general, as well as serious and design games, are techniques that can be used as tools in participative processes. Especially with children, games are preferred in participatory planning and design processes. Games are described as competitive activities with a specific set of rules in which factors such as strength, technique, chance or a combination of these conditions determine a winner (Habraken; Gross, 1987a, 1987b; Brandt; Messeter, 2004). When applied to participatory projects, the aim is not to obtain a winner, but to enhance the diversity of results according to the skills and interests of the participants (Brandt, 2006). Games allow the actions of the project to be planned and defined in advance, providing a manipulable environment (Habraken; Gross, 1987a, 1987b). The establishment of criteria and a set of rules are essential to the activity’s success, as they allow participants to understand the objectives of a gaming activity (Peña; Parshall, 2012).

Methods

The Brazilian case study of the uVITAL project was developed in the housing complex called Quilombo, located in the city Campinas, SP.This SH project was part of the Federal Government Growth Acceleration Program (PAC). Families living in Quilombo are owners of their houses and were reallocated from risk areas by the municipal housing agency COHAB (Figure 1).

The complex was finished in 2013. It is organized as a row of 96 two-story houses along two cul-de-sac streets connected. At the end of these streets, two small identical playgrounds were included by the developers. Before the activities described in this article, several other participatory events occurred in the neighborhood, organized by researchers of uVITAL. These activities (Figure 2) were in four stages and included questionnaires and post-occupancy evaluations to get to know the site and the occupants. Positive points and priority demands were identified to conduct collaborative activities of our LLs. Concerning the play areas for children, observations by the research team concluded that the duplication of the playground was considered a poor urban design decision. However, the population, when asked in initial contacts, did not perceive any problems in the missed planning opportunities concerning common open space in the neighborhood.

The preparation of the specific participatory planning event, involving children, favored both playful and educational activities. The integration between the different profiles of participants with different ages was explored by using graphic representations for simple explanations in the activity material prepared. All activities were of short duration to adjust to the attention span of small children. Also, as the number of participants could not be anticipated all activities were planned for small groups of children working in parallel. These groups could be composed of different age brackets.

Two activities were developed, “Designing the playground” and “Tree species identification”. For the first activity entitled: “Designing the playground”, a 2D model was prepared with the delimitation of the common-use area located at the end of the two cul-de-sac streets and the trees along the perimeter of the housing complex. This 2D model was the base for the co-design activity. Common playground items were also cut out in advance at the same scale as the base area model (Figure 3). Animal footprints for skipping, hopscotch, and various outlines of trees and bushes were provided to plan the playground on the base. All items were chosen to be recognizable as common playground toys and elements such as furniture. This type of material was chosen for ease of manipulation and as an educational incentive to inspire children to develop similar activities for themselves.

The second activity was closely associated with a Bingo game that the adults were playing in the LL event. The prizes for the Bingo game were a variety of seedlings of native tree species. The seedlings were to encourage the community to make their neighborhood greener and provide shade for streets and open areas, thus improving the microclimate in summer. The “tree species identification” activity focused on engaging the children in improving the landscaping of the neighborhood. The identification of local trees was once again a playful challenge and an educational activity. Thus, each species could be identified through the shape of its leaves, flowers and in some cases fruit, graphically presented on specially prepared cards. All children were given paper and colored pens to draw the trees they were identifying. Adults received detailed descriptions of each seedling received, with planting and maintenance instructions that could be shared with children later on.

To evaluate the activities with children, further material was developed in the form of an illustrative questionnaire (Figure 4). First, each participant indicated playground item preferences through a Likert scale of faces representing: I loved it; I liked it; I didn't like it very much; or I hated it. Secondly, the children evaluated the activities themselves. Here, again the Likert scale could be used or children, old enough, could put their opinions in writing.

All activities were approved by the Research Ethics Committee (CEP) of UNICAMP and the “Plataforma Brasil”, CAAE Number: 36778620.0.0000.8142.

Figure 1
Existing recreation area

Figure 2
Stages and activities carried out by the UVITAL team

Figure 3
Materials for the playground design activity

Figure 4
Activity evaluation tool

Results and discussion

The activities were planned for a Saturday morning to maximize the number of participants, as there are usually no school activities during this time. For the LL event, two tents were set up near the existing playground (Figure 5), the concept of LLs stipulates that such planning processes should take place in the reality to be discussed. One tent was for the children’s activities. A table was placed in the middle of the tent space for the playground design activity. The cut-out playground elements were distributed around the 2D base model on the table. For the second activity, a piece of cloth was placed on the ground so the children could sit on the floor, identify the trees and draw pictures with trees and flowers.

Initially, the uVITAL team asked the participating children their names, ages and which part of the neighborhood they liked the most to get to know them and “break the ice” between the 15 children participating and the team members. Then the team explained the concept of neighborhood improvements and the proposed activities that were planned. Also, the team explained that two different activities would occur in two small groups and that each child would participate in both activities in turn.

Once assigned to the "Designing the playground" activity, the group of children was able to choose from the laser-cut pieces of playground toy and furniture elements, including spinners, seesaws, slides, swings, playground mounds, hopscotch, animal tracks and trees. Selected pieces were placed on the 2D base according to group discussions and decisions (Figure 6). The children soon understood the design exercise and produced a design proposal not only for the existing playground area but also for the extended surrounding area. Furthermore, they suggested interventions for the streets, sidewalks and remaining open spaces in the neighborhood.

The team observed the children in their co-design activity and noted that the children suggested the installation of a water fountain near the playground. This was not anticipated by the team and later discussed with the adults, as no public water tap is available in the housing complex, and individual users will water existing vegetation with private water taps. This in some cases is causing conflict, as water is individually metered and paid for.

The team also observed that the second children’s group during the playground co-design chose to reproduce the exact existing playground designs that were installed in duplicate in the housing complex. Thus, it could be argued that the co-design exercise was not sufficiently stimulated to permit new ideas.

While one group designed their playground the other was involved with the second activity of "Tree species identification". Each child was given a printed card with images of a tree species, their leaves, flowers and fruit. The species chosen were Eugenia involucrata, Psidium guajava, Morus nigra L., Eugenia uniflora L., Tabebuia roseo-alba, Tabebuia impetiginosa, Tabebuia avellanedae, Tabebuia chrysotricha, which were part of the prizes in the Bingo game played by the adults later and accompanied by the children. During the identification process, the children interacted with the team about their understanding of the species on the cards while also drawing the trees, their leaves and flowers (Figure 7).

During this event, the children showed their autonomy and changed from one activity to the next as soon as they concluded one task to partake in the next.

Figure 5
Participatory process - Parallel activities

Figure 6
Participatory process - “designing the playground” area

Evaluation process

Qualitative evaluation occurred through the distribution of questionnaires described above. A quantitative analysis was not considered in this study, as precise data on the number of children living in the Quilombo development and their age brackets was not available. The representation of the 15 participating children in the LL event, in relation to the total number of young residents, could therefore not be assessed. Also, several of the participants were visiting friends of resident children and a statistical result was considered inappropriate with such a sample.

For these reasons, at the end of the two planned activities, the group of children and the team got back together to comment on the event and start a formal but qualitative evaluation process. After handing out the illustrative questionnaires, followed by a brief explanation, the children individually colored in the figures for each of the playground elements and marked their preferences through the Likert scale. During this evaluation, the children shared their preferences in discussions among themselves and the team (Figure 8).

The team observed that children evaluated the activities very positively with a lively discussion and contentment. Preferences were clear, and dislikes were indicated without strong gesticulations. Swings in general were disliked, while floor markings like hopscotch were liked by most. Trees were part of both co-design proposals and the children indicated their preferences for vegetation overall. The playground mounds received less attention, as these are rarely found in local playgrounds, and thus children are not familiar with them.

The questionnaire (Figure 4) with two columns to indicate preferences for activities was not intuitively understood, as many children did not indicate preferences but approved of both activities. From the conversation with the whole group, the team understood that the children, from their perspectives, enjoyed both activities and that they were able to reach a consensus on designing a new playground and making improvements to the existing area. In addition, the children indicated that the drawing session was well accepted and allowed them to participate in both tasks without generating boredom or monotony. This suggests that the planning of two different activities simultaneously encouraged the participation of all the children in the whole event and even stimulated the participation in the adult Bingo game.

Figure 7
Participatory process - identifying the vegetation

Figure 8
Activity for evaluating the activity

Conclusion

This study described a participatory planning activity in a SH area in the city of Campinas, SP involving children. The goal was to attract more participants to a neighborhood co-design event using the concept of LLs. The specific activities were seen to help the adult discussion groups by distracting the children as well as engaging young residents in co-designs concerning play areas as a ludic and educational activity. Children were thus encouraged to reflect on their housing environment and especially the play spaces available. Furthermore, the concept of LLs asks for the engagement of all stakeholders involved in a co-design process. In this case, the planning authority of the specific housing projects was not present in the LL event, only the research team and end-users. The research team considered the presence of children important to increase community engagement, enable in-depth adult focus group discussions and gain design input directly from children concerning their home environment.

Results of our activities showed that the exploratory nature of children and their curiosity were applied positively in this co-design event. Children contributed ideas for future improvement interventions in the neighborhood. Young participants were given an integrated role in increasing user values through the introduction of improvements in SH complexes. The involvement of children increased community engagement in planning and designing the upgrading of a SH neighborhood. An increase in the population's perception of their housing environment was achieved by the children as real users of their living place. Young residents voiced their judgment on both positive and negative aspects of their neighborhood and perceived, as well as understood the urban design project.

Results of the LL event showed that the type of activities developed has the potential to be explored for educational purposes. The participatory activities touch on several issues, such as ecology, climate change, the notion of scale and living in society, and learning from the reality of their home environment involving children in traditional school subjects such as biology, and increased awareness of urban problems.

Increasing children's perception of the built environment can increase their empowerment in the realization of their role in the decision-making processes on neighborhood improvement projects. The potential of this empowerment in co-design projects that benefit participants themselves should be tested to gauge the adding of user values. Community activities with a variety of stakeholders should therefore be explored further.

The specific potentials and weaknesses of the target population, their playful nature, preferences for hands-on activities and levels of communication skills should also be further explored. Future studies should test questions about the timing of activities and repetitive tasks to avoid withdrawal, disinterest, disruptive behavior and other attitudes that hamper an effective co-design process. Other stimulating activities, suggested in the literature, should be tested to increase the repertoire of ideas for participatory planning processes involving children. Furthermore, the interpretation and analysis of the data obtained from such new research must be carried out with specific objectives in mind to obtain information that reflects reality with added user value.

Overall, our study provided expected results concerning methodology, preparation of activities, lessons learned and efficacy of decision-making procedures involving children. Knowledge on engagement and empowerment of children could be obtained, and design contributions for the improvement of a neighborhood were obtained. Often in participatory processes, children’s potentials are not fully recognized and this leads to methodological difficulties based on adult-led planning practices. Preconceived ideas about the outcome of processes involving children must be problematized. We recommend that children should not be involved in participatory processes only for the sake of their formal representation.

Although the proposals in this planning activity and its evaluation were not implemented in the specific housing complex, we believe that knowledge gained from our study, with necessary considerations on context, has the potential to be incorporated into other participatory initiatives. Also, knowledge gained can be applied with different groups of people involved, keeping in mind user values, including children’s values. Thus, SH co-design projects must aim at target audiences, in all aspects. Finally, participatory processes, using LLs, need to be grounded on research results of case studies such as the one presented here and based on existing knowledge of the relation of children to their everyday environments. From these insights, guidelines can then be developed and tested for effective participatory planning.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo - FAPESP [ Process: 2019/02240-5 2020/06462-0; 2021/11891-0; 2022/01028-5] for the generous funding support.

References

• BAEK, J. S.; LEE, K.P. A participatory design approach to information architecture design for children. CoDesign - International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, v. 4, n. 3, p. 173-191, 2008.
• BERGVALL-KÅREBORN, B.; HOLST, M.; STÅHLBRÖST, A. Concept design with a Living Lab approach. In: HAWAII INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SYSTEM SCIENCES, 42.,Waikoloa, 2009. Proceedings […] Waikoloa, 2009
• BRANDT, E.; MESSETER, J. Facilitating collaboration through design games. In: CONFERENCE ON PARTICIPATORY DESIGN, 8., Toronto. Proceedings [...]New York: ACM, 2004.
• BRANDT, E. Designing exploratory design games: a framework for participation in participatory design? In: CONFERENCE ON PARTICIPATORY DESIGN: EXPANDING BOUNDARIES IN DESIGN, 9., Trento, 2006. Proceedings [...] Trento, 2006.
• CELE, S.; VAN DER BURGT, D. Participation, consultation, confusion: professionals’ understandings of children’s participation in physical planning. Children’s Geographies, v. 13, n. 1, p. 14-29, 2015.
• CLAUDE, S. et al The Living Lab methodology for complex environments: insights from the thermal refurbishment of a historical district in the city of Cahors, France. Energy Research & Social Science, v. 32, p. 121-130, 2017.
• DEL RIO, V.; IWATA, N.; SANOFF, H. Programação e métodos participativos para o projeto de arquitetura: o caso do Colégio de Aplicação da UFRJ. In: NÚCLEO DE PESQUISA EM TECNOLOGIA DA ARQUITETURA, URBANISMO E DESIGN DA UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO NUTAU, São Paulo, 2000. Anais [...] São Paulo, 2000.
• DELIBERADOR, M. S.; KOWALTOWSKI, D. C. C. K. Importância dos agentes para a arquitetura escolar: aplicação de jogo de apoio ao processo participativo. Ambiente Construído, Porto Alegre, v. 18, n. 2, p. 273-288, abr./jun. 2018.
• ELALI, G. A.; PINHEIRO, J. Q. Analisando a experiência do habitar: algumas estratégias metodológicas. In: QUALIDADE Ambiental na Habitação: avaliação pós-ocupação. São Paulo: Oficina de Textos, 2016.
• HABRAKEN, H. J.; GROSS, M. D. Concept design games: a report submitted to the national science foundation engineering directorate. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1987a. Book 1.
• HABRAKEN, H. J.; GROSS, M. D. Concept design games: a report submitted to the national science foundation engineering directorate . Cambridge: MIT Press , 1987b. Book 2.
• HORELLI, L. Creating child-friendly environments: case studies on children’s participation in three European countries. Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research, v. 5, n. 2, p. 225-239, 1998.
• JUPP, E. The feeling of participation: everyday spaces and urban change. Geoforum, Environmental Economic Geography, v. 39, n. 1, p. 331-343, jan. 2008.
• KOWALTOWSKI, D. C. C. K. et al A critical analysis of research of a mass-housing programme. Building Research and Information, v. 47, n. 6, 2018.
• KRUEGER, R.; CASEY, M. A. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. London: Sage, 2000.
• LEMINEN, S.; WESTERLUND, M.; NYSTRÖM, A.-G. Living Labs as open-innovation networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, v. 2, n. 9, p. 6-10, set. 2012.
• LUCK, R. Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations. Design Studies, v. 28, n. 3, p. 217-242, 2007.
• MORGAN, D. L. Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage, 1997
• PEÑA, W. M.; PARSHALL, S. A. Problem seeking: an architectural programming primer. NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
• READ, J. C. et al An investigation of participatory design with children - informant, balanced and facilitated design. Interaction design and Children, v.1, p.53-64, 2002.
• SIQUEIRA-GAY, J.; SÁNCHEZ, L. E. Mainstreaming environmental issues into housing plans: the approach of Strategic Environmental Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, v. 77, p. 145-153, 2019.
• STEEN, K.; VAN BUEREN, E. Urban living labs: a living lab way of working. 4^th dd. Netherlands: AMS Institute, 2017.
• STENBERG, J. Dilemmas associated with tenant participation in renovation of housing in marginalized areas may lead to system change. Cogent Social Sciences, v. 4, n. 1, p. 1-22, 2018.
• TANG, T.; HÄMÄLÄINEN, M. Beyond open innovation: the living Lab Way of ICT innovation. Interdisciplinary Studies Journal, v. 3, n. 4, p. 15-23, 2014.
• VAN GEENHUIZEN, M. A framework for the evaluation of living labs as boundary spanners in innovation. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, v. 36, n. 7, 1280-1298, 2018.
• VILLA, S. B.; ORNSTEIN, S. W. Qualidade Ambiental na Habitação-Avaliação Pós-Ocupação. São Paulo: Oficina de Textos , 2016.
• WOOLNER, P. Building Schools for the Future through a participatory design process: exploring the issues and investigating ways. In: ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE BRITSH EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, Manchester, 2009. Proceedings [...] London: BERA, 2009.

Edited by

Editor:

Enedir Ghisi

Editora convidada:

Kelen Dornelles

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  07 Oct 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  31 Jan 2024
• Accepted
  18 Apr 2024