Land-Use Planning in Municipalities as a Driver for Sustainable Residential Building in Finland: A Regional Innovation System Approach-Journal of Sustainability Research-CSCIED科技核心评价数据库-手机版

Land-Use Planning in Municipalities as a Driver for Sustainable Residential Building in Finland: A Regional Innovation System Approach

Land-Use Planning in Municipalities as a Driver for Sustainable Residential Building in Finland: A Regional Innovation System Approach

ES评分 0 浏览量：513 下载量：0

全文阅读下载引用收藏

DOI	10.20900/jsr20230006
刊名	Journal of Sustainability Research JSR
年，卷(期)	2023, 5(2)
作者	Atte Koskivaara*,Katja Lähtinen,
作者单位	Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki, 00790, Finland
Abstract	Land-use planning has been identified as an important tool in pursuing sustainability by guiding the construction and development of our built environment. Sustainability action places large requirements for municipalities to develop and introduce priorities in their planning. Land-use planning system in Finland relate to regulation and decisions of authorities connected to national, regional, and municipal levels. In general, municipal level has the most power in decision making by holding e.g., planning monopolies. Municipal land-use planners operate in the junction of different actors including businesses, local politicians, citizens, and research institutions. Thus, they provide an interesting opportunity to study the operationalization and objectives of land-use planning in different regions. This study takes the regional innovation system approach to illustrate planning systems, involvement of different stakeholders and the sustainability objectives of land-use planning in varying regions in Finland. Quantitative methods (i.e., exploratory factor analysis, statistical tests) are used in the online survey data analysis. Our results suggest a strong connection between informal planning system and municipalities’ sustainability objectives as well as stakeholders representing research and governance organizations whereas statutory planning system is more connected with users of existing knowledge. Regarding regional characteristics, urban municipality planners were found to perceive informal planning as more important than planners in other municipalities. Additionally, connected to the results on sustainability objectives, urban municipality planners paid attention especially on goals for sustainable building, while those working in other municipalities emphasized both goals on sustainable building and securing ecosystem services.
KeyWord	land-use planning; sustainable building; residential areas; rural; urban; statutory; informal; stakeholders
基金项目
页码	-

参考文献
相关文献

1. Stokes EC, Seto KC. Characterizing and measuring urban landscapes for sustainability. Available from: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafab8/pdf. Accessed 2023 Apr 23. 2. Le Blanc D. Towards Integration at Last? The Sustainable Development Goals as a Network of Targets. Sustain Dev. 2015;23(3):176-87. 3. Keskitalo ECH, Liljenfeldt J. Working with sustainability: Experiences of sustainability processes in Swedish municipalities. Nat Resour Forum. 2012;36(1):16-27. 4. Barton H. Land use planning and health and well-being. Land Use Policy. 2009;26:S115-23. 5. Tammi I, Mustajärvi K, Rasinmäki J. Integrating spatial valuation of ecosystem services into regional planning and development. Ecosyst Serv. 2017;26:329-44. 6. Karhinen S, Peltomaa J, Riekkinen V, Saikku L. Impact of a climate network: The role of intermediaries in local level climate action. Glob Environ Change. 2021;67:102225. 7. Rönkkö E, Aarrevaara E. Towards Strengths-Based Planning Strategies for Rural Localities in Finland. Eur Countrys. 2017;9(3):397-415. 8. Boehnke RF, Hoppe T, Brezet H, Blok K. Good practices in local climate mitigation action by small and medium-sized cities; exploring meaning, implementation and linkage to actual lowering of carbon emissions in thirteen municipalities in The Netherlands. J Clean Prod. 2019;207:630-44. 9. Palermo V, Bertoldi P, Apostolou M, Kona A, Rivas S. Assessment of climate change mitigation policies in 315 cities in the Covenant of Mayors initiative. Sustain Cities Soc. 2020;60:102258. 10. Fuhr H, Hickmann T, Kern K. The role of cities in multi-level climate governance: local climate policies and the 1.5 °C target. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2018;30:1-6. 11. Heikkinen M, Ylä-Anttila T, Juhola S. Incremental, reformistic or transformational: what kind of change do C40 cities advocate to deal with climate change? J Environ Policy Plan. 2019;21(1):90-103. 12. Rashidi K, Patt A. Subsistence over symbolism: the role of transnational municipal networks on cities’ climate policy innovation and adoption. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang. 2018;23(4):507-23. 13. Le Bivic C, Melot R. Scheduling urbanization in rural municipalities: Local practices in land-use planning on the fringes of the Paris region. Land Use Policy. 2020;99:105040. 14. Solly A. Land use challenges, sustainability and the spatial planning balancing act: Insights from Sweden and Switzerland. Eur Plan Stud. 2021;29(4):637-53. 15. Huang-Lachmann JT, Lovett JC. How cities prepare for climate change: Comparing Hamburg and Rotterdam. Cities. 2016;54:36-44. 16. Mäntysalo R, Saglie IL, Cars G. Between Input Legitimacy and Output Efficiency: Defensive Routines and Agonistic Reflectivity in Nordic Land-Use Planning. Eur Plan Stud. 2011;19(12):2109-26. 17. D’Adamo I, Gastaldi M, Morone P. Economic sustainable development goals: Assessments and perspectives in Europe. J Clean Prod. 2022;354:131730. 18. Busck AG, Hidding MC, Kristensen SBP, Persson C, Præstholm S. Managing rurban landscapes in the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden: Comparing planning systems and instruments in three different contexts. Geogr Tidsskr. 2008;108(2):1-16. 19. Peltonen L, Sairinen R. Integrating impact assessment and conflict management in urban planning: Experiences from Finland. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2010;30(5):328-37. 20. Puustinen Sari. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu ammattina: suomalaiset kaavoittajat ja 2000-luvun haasteet
[Community planning as a profession: Finnish planners and the challenges of the 21st century]. Avilable from: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/40615/SY_715.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 2023 Apr 23. Finnish. 21. Persson C. Deliberation or doctrine? Land use and spatial planning for sustainable development in sweden. Land Use Policy. 2013;34:301-13. 22. Salmi A, Jussila J, Hämäläinen M. The role of municipalities in transformation towards more sustainable construction: the case of wood construction in Finland. Constr Manag Econ. 2022;40(11–12):934-54. 23. Blayse AM, Manley K. Key influences on construction innovation. Constr Innov. 2004;4(3):143-54. 24. Lähtinen K, Toppinen A, Malm N. Effects of Lobbying Among Urban Planners in Finland-Views on Multi-Storey Wooden Building. BioProd Bus. 2019;4(7):77-92. 25. Rinne J, Primmer E. A Case Study of Ecosystem Services in Urban Planning in Finland: Benefits, Rights and Responsibilities. J Environ Policy Plan. 2016;18(3):286-305. 26. van den Heiligenberg HARM, Heimeriks GJ, Hekkert MP, van Oort FG. A habitat for sustainability experiments: Success factors for innovations in their local and regional contexts. J Clean Prod. 2017;169:204-15. 27. Wolfram M. Learning urban energy governance for system innovation: an assessment of transformative capacity development in three South Korean cities. J Environ Policy Plan. 2019;21(1):30-45. 28. Affolderbach J, Schulz C. Positioning Vancouver through urban sustainability strategies? The Greenest City 2020 Action Plan. J Clean Prod. 2017;164:676-85. 29. Leminen S, Rajahonka M, Westerlund M, Hossain M. Collaborative innovation for sustainability in Nordic cities. J Clean Prod. 2021;328:129549. 30. Mowery DC, Nelson RR, Martin BR. Technology policy and global warming: Why new policy models are needed (or why putting new wine in old bottles won’t work). Res Policy. 2010;39(8):1011-23. 31. Hansen EN. The Role of Innovation in the Forest Products Industry. J For. 2010;108(7):348-53. 32. Mukhtar-Landgren D, Kronsell A, Voytenko Palgan Y, von Wirth T. Municipalities as enablers in urban experimentation. J Environ Policy Plan. 2019;21(6):718-33. 33. Chiu RLH. Socio-cultural sustainability of housing: A conceptual exploration. Hous Theory Soc. 2004;21(2):65-76. 34. Röck M, Saade MRM, Balouktsi M, Rasmussen FN, Birgisdottir H, Frischknecht R, et al. Embodied GHG emissions of buildings—The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation. Appl Energy. 2020;258:114107. 35. Holm J, Stauning I, Søndergård B. Local climate mitigation and eco-efforts in housing and construction as transition places. Environ Policy Gov. 2011;21(3):183-98. 36. Retzlaff RC. Green Buildings and Building Assessment Systems: A New Area of Interest for Planners. J Plan Lit. 2009;24(1):3-21. 37. Kautonen M. The regional innovation system bottom-up: A Finnish perspective. Tampere (Finland): Tampere University Press; 2006. 38. Makkonen T, Merisalo M, Inkinen T. Containers, facilitators, innovators? The role of cities and city employees in innovation activities. Eur Urban Reg Stud. 2018;25(1):106-18. 39. Tödtling F, Trippl M. One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Res Policy. 2005;34(8):1203-19. 40. Kern K. Cities as leaders in EU multilevel climate governance: embedded upscaling of local experiments in Europe. Env Polit. 2019;28(1):125-45. 41. Eder J. Innovation in the Periphery: A Critical Survey and Research Agenda. Int Reg Sci Rev. 2019;42(2):119-46. 42. Suorsa K. Regionality, innovation policy and peripheral regions in Finland, Sweden and Norway. Fennia. 2007;185:15-29. 43. Refsgaard K, Kull M, Slätmo E, Meijer MW. Bioeconomy—A driver for regional development in the Nordic countries. N Biotechnol. 2021;60:130-7. 44. Vermaat JE, Immerzeel B, Pouta E, Juutinen A. Applying ecosystem services as a framework to analyze the effects of alternative bio-economy scenarios in Nordic catchments. Ambio. 2020;49(11):1784-96. 45. Innes JE, Booher DE. Collaborative rationality as a strategy for working with wicked problems. Landsc Urban Plan. 2016;154:8-10. 46. Hossain MdU, Ng ST, Antwi-Afari P, Amor B. Circular economy and the construction industry: Existing trends, challenges and prospective framework for sustainable construction. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2020;130:109948. 47. Sager T. Communicative Planners as Naїve Mandarins of the Neo-liberal State? Eur J Spat Dev. 2005;3(8):1-9. 48. Säynäjoki ES, Heinonen J, Junnila S. The power of urban planning on environmental sustainability: A focus group study in Finland. Sustainability. 2014;6(10):6622-43. 49. Land use and building act. Available from: https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990132.pdf. Accessed 2023 Apr 23. 50. Hirvonen-Kantola S, Mäntysalo R. The recent development of Finnish planning system. New York (US): Routledge; 2014. 51. Ymparisto.fi. VALTIONEUVOSTON PÄÄTÖS VALTAKUNNALLISISTA ALUEIDENKÄYTTÖTAVOITTEISTA. Available from: https://www.ymparisto.fi/fi/rakennettu-ymparisto/kaavoitus-ja-alueidenkaytto. Accessed 2023 Apr 23. 52. Böhme K. Nordic echoes of European spatial planning: discursive integration in practice. Stockholm (Sweden): Nordregio; 2002. 53. Healey P. Planning control in Western Europe: H.W.E Davies, D. Edwards, J.V. Punter and A.J. Hooper HMSO, London, UK, 1989, 442 pp. Land Use Policy. 1990;7(4):363-4. doi: 10.1016/0264-8377(90)90029-X 54. Davies HWE. Towards a European Planning System? Plan Pract Res. 1994;9(1):63-9. 55. Kaufman JL. American and Israeli Planners: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. J Am Plann Assoc. 1985;51(3):352-63. 56. Sager T. Planners’ Role: Torn between Dialogical Ideals and Neo-liberal Realities. Eur Plan Stud. 2009;17(1):65-84. 57. Kaufman JL, Escuin M. Thinking Alike. J Am Plann Assoc. 2000;66(1):34-45. 58. Li K, Dethier P, Eika A, Samsura DAA, van der Krabben E, Nordahl B, et al. Measuring and comparing planning cultures: risk, trust and co-operative attitudes in experimental games. Eur Plan Stud. 2020;28(6):1118-38. 59. Albrechts L, Balducci A. Practicing strategic planning: In search of critical features to explain the strategic character of plans. DISP. 2013;49(3):16-27. 60. Albrechts L. Shifts in strategic spatial planning? Some evidence from Europe and Australia. Environ Plan A: Economy and Space. 2006;38(6):1149-70. 61. Mäntysalo R, Jarenko K, Nilsson KL, Saglie IL. Legitimacy of Informal Strategic Urban Planning—Observations from Finland, Sweden and Norway. Eur Plan Stud. 2015;23(2):349-66. 62. Banai R. Plan vs Project Dilemma Revisited: A Progress Review of Urban and Regional Studies Literature. Urban Stud. 2013;50(4):807-24. 63. UN Habitat. Planning Sustainable Cities: Global Report on Human Settlements 2009. Available from: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/download-manager-files/Global%20Report%20on%20Human%20Settlements%202009%20Planning%20Sustainable%20Cities.pdf. Accessed 2023 Apr 23. 64. Gustafsson S, Hermelin B, Smas L. Integrating environmental sustainability into strategic spatial planning: the importance of management. J Environ Plan Manag. 2019;62(8):1321-38. 65. Forester J. Reflections on the future understanding of planning practice. Int Plan Stud. 1999;4(2):175-93. 66. Davoudi S. Planning as practice of knowing. Plan Theory. 2015;14(3):316-31. 67. Rydin Y. Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning theory. Plan Theory. 2007;6(1):52-68. 68. Majchrzak A, More PHB, Faraj S. Transcending knowledge differences in cross-functional teams. Organ Sci. 2012;23(4):951-70. 69. Eräranta S, Mladenović MN. Networked dynamics of knowledge integration in strategic spatial planning processes: a social network approach. Reg Stud. 2021;55(5):870-82. 70. Healey P. Transforming governance: Challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space. Eur Plan Stud. 2006;(3):299-320. 71. Carbonara N, Pellegrino R. The role of public private partnerships in fostering innovation. Constr Manag Econ. 2020;38(2):140-56. 72. Gluch P, Svensson I. On the nexus of changing public facilities management practices: purposive and co-creative actions across multiple levels. Constr Manag Econ. 2018;36(5):259-75. 73. Lindblad H, Karrbom Gustavsson T. Public clients ability to drive industry change: the case of implementing BIM. Constr Manag Econ. 2021;39(1):21-35. 74. Franzini F, Toivonen R, Toppinen A. Why Not Wood? Benefits and Barriers of Wood as a Multistory Construction Material: Perceptions of Municipal Civil Servants from Finland. Buildings. 2018;8(11):159. 75. Cajaiba-Santana G. Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2014;82(1):42-51. 76. Osborne SP, Brown L. Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK. The word that would be king? Public Adm. 2011;89(4):1335-50. 77. Christmann GB, Ibert O, Jessen J, Walther UJ. Innovations in spatial planning as a social process—phases, actors, conflicts. Eur Plan Stud. 2020;28(3):496–520. 78. Georgios C, Nikolaos N. Socially innovative spatial planning: insights from within and beyond a LEADER framework. European Planning Studies. 2021;29(8):1419-37. 79. Moulaert F, Martinelli F, González S, Swyngedouw E. Introduction: Social Innovation and Governance in European Cities: Urban Development Between Path Dependency and Radical Innovation. Eur Urban Reg Stud. 2007;14(3):195-209. 80. Nyseth T, Hamdouch A. The transformative power of social innovation in urban planning and local development. Urban Plan. 2019;4(1):1-6. 81. Pinson G. Political government and governance: Strategic planning and the reshaping of political capacity in Turin. Int J Urban Reg Res. 2002;26(3):477-93. 82. Mulgan G. The Process of Social Innovation. Available from: http://temp.uefiscdi.ro/EDIGIREGION/DIGITAL%20SOCIAL%20INNOVATIONThe_Process_of_Social_Innovation.pdf. Accessed 2023 Apr 23. 83. Hellström T. Innovation as social action. Organization. 2004;11(5):631-49. 84. Slappendel C. Perspectives on Innovation in Organizations. Organ Stud. 1996;17(1):107-29. 85. Grimm R, Fox C, Baines S, Albertson K. Social innovation, an answer to contemporary societal challenges? Locating the concept in theory and practice. Available from: http://temp.uefiscdi.ro/edigiregion_v3/Social%20innovation,%20an%20answer%20to%20contemporary%20societal%20challenges-%20Locating%20the%20concept%20in%20theory%20and%20practice.pdf. Accessed 2023 Apr 24. 86. Angelidou M, Psaltoglou A. An empirical investigation of social innovation initiatives for sustainable urban development. Sustain Cities Soc. 2017;33:113-25. 87. The Young Foundation. Defining Social Innovation. Available from: https://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/TEPSIE.D1.1.Report.DefiningSocialInnovation.Part-1-defining-social-innovation.pdf. Accessed 2023 Apr 24. 88. Edquist C. Systems of innovation: perspectives and challenges. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Charles-Edquist-2/publication/241678040_Systems_of_Innovation_Perspectives_and_Challenges/links/552d25cf0cf29b22c9c4b832/Systems-of-Innovation-Perspectives-and-Challenges.pdf. Accessed 2023 Apr 23. 89. Asheim B, Grillitsch M, Trippl M. Regional Innovation Systems: Past-Presence-Future. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282359791. Accessed 2023 Apr 23. 90. Doloreux D, Parto S. Regional innovation systems: Current discourse and unresolved issues. Technol Soc. 2005;27:133-53. 91. Trippl M. Developing cross-border regional innovation systems: Key factors and challenges. Tijdschr Econ Soc Geogr. 2010;101(2):150-60. 92. Whittington KB, Owen-Smith J, Powell WW. Networks, Propinquity, and Innovation in Knowledge-intensive Industries. Adm Sci Q. 2009;54(1):90-122. 93. Autio E. Evaluation of RTD in regional systems of innovation. Eur Plan Stud. 1998;6(2):131-40. 94. Kiryushin P, Mulloth B, Iakovleva T. Developing cross-border regional innovation systems with clean technology entrepreneurship: the case of Øresund. Int J Innov Reg Dev. 2013;5(2):179-95. 95. Salo R, Mäntysalo R. Path dependencies and defensive routines in Finnish city-regional land-use policy cooperation: case Ristikytö. Int Plan Stud. 2017;22(2):128-44. 96. Hytönen J, Mäntysalo R, Peltonen L, Kanninen V, Niemi P, Simanainen M. Defensive routines in land use policy steering in Finnish urban regions. Eur Urban Reg Stud. 2013;23(1):40-55. 97. Zhao SL, Cacciolatti L, Lee SH, Song W. Regional collaborations and indigenous innovation capabilities in China: A multivariate method for the analysis of regional innovation systems. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2015;94:202-20. 98. Makkonen T, Rohde S. Cross-border regional innovation systems: conceptual backgrounds, empirical evidence and policy implications. Eur Plan Stud. 2016;24(9):1623-42. 99. Cooke P, Gomez Uranga M, Etxebarria G. Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Res Policy. 1997;26(4–5):475-91. 100. Kyrgiafini L, Sefertzi E. Changing regional systems of innovation in Greece: the impact of regional innovation strategy initiatives in peripheral areas of Europe. Eur Plan Stud. 2003;11(8):885-910. 101. Koppenjan J, Klijn EH. Managing Uncertainties in Networks. New York (US): Routledge; 2004. 102. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1973;4(2):155-69. 103. Pino RM, Ortega AM. Regional innovation systems: Systematic literature review and recommendations for future research. Cogent Bus Manag. 2018;5(1):1463606. 104. Boschma RA. Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Reg Stud. 2005;39(1):61-74. 105. Pekkarinen S, Harmaakorpi V. Building regional innovation networks: The definition of an age business core process in a regional innovation system. Reg Stud. 2006;40(4):401-13. 106. Harmaakorpi V. Regional Development Platform Method (RDPM) as a tool for regional innovation policy. Eur Plan Stud. 2006;14(8):1085-104. 107. Matschoss K, Heiskanen E. Making it experimental in several ways: The work of intermediaries in raising the ambition level in local climate initiatives. J Clean Prod. 2017;169:85-93. 108. Häkkinen T, Rekola M, Ala-Juusela M, Ruuska A. Role of Municipal Steering in Sustainable Building and Refurbishment. Energy Proced. 2016;96:650-61. 109. Uotila T, Melkas H, Harmaakorpi V. Incorporating futures research into regional knowledge creation and management. Futures. 2005;37(8):849-66. 110. Yli-Pelkonen V, Kohl J. The role of local ecological knowledge in sustainable urban planning: perspectives from Finland. Sustainability: Sci Pract Policy. 2005;1(1):3-14. 111. Heiskanen E, Lovio R, Jalas M. Path creation for sustainable consumption: promoting alternative heating systems in Finland. J Clean Prod. 2011;19(16):1892-900. 112. Juhola S, Westerhoff L. Challenges of adaptation to climate change across multiple scales: a case study of network governance in two European countries. Environ Sci Policy. 2011;14(3):239-47. 113. Leino H, Peltomaa J. Situated knowledge-situated legitimacy: Consequences of citizen participation in local environmental governance. Policy Soc. 2012;31(2):159-68. 114. Faehnle M, Bäcklund P, Tyrväinen L, Niemelä J, Yli-Pelkonen V. How can residents’ experiences inform planning of urban green infrastructure? Case Finland. Landsc Urban Plan. 2014;130:171-83. 115. Virtanen MJ, Reinekoski T, Lahikainen L, Lehtonen TK. Travels and Trials of Climate Knowledge in Finnish Municipalities. Sci Technol Stud. 2022;35(1):2-20. 116. Tiitu M, Viinikka A, Kopperoinen L, Geneletti D. A Spatial Multi-Criteria Approach Based on Practitioner Engagement. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 2018;20(3):1-26. 117. de Jong M, Joss S, Schraven D, Zhan C, Weijnen M. Sustainable-smart-resilient-low carbon-eco-knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. J Clean Prod. 2015;109:25-38. 118. European Commission, FAO, UN-Habitat, OECD, The World Bank. Applying the degree of urbanisation: a methodological manual to define cities, towns and rural areas for international comparisons: 2021 edition. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/4bc1c502-en.pdf?expires=1682238791&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=B2B5583EBCC56594812E62332DE80A59. Accessed 2023 Apr 23. 119. Kim JO, Mueller CW. Introduction to Factor Analysis. London (UK): SAGE Publications; 1978. 120. Henson RK, Roberts JK. Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Published Research: Common Errors and Some Comment on Improved Practice. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006;66(3):393-416. 121. Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT. Exploratory factor analysis. New York (US): Oxford University Press; 2011. 122. Beavers AS, Lounsbury JW, Richards JK, Huck SW, Skolits GJ. Practical Considerations for Using Exploratory Factor Analysis in Educational Research. Available from: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1303&context=pare. Accessed 2023 Apr 23. 123. Child D. The essentials of factor analysis. 3rd ed. New York (US): A&C Black; 2006. 124. King AP, Eckersley RJ. Chapter 6—Inferential Statistics III: Nonparametric Hypothesis Testing. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081029398000153. Accessed 2023 Apr 23.

引用本文

Atte Koskivaara*,Katja Lähtinen. Land-Use Planning in Municipalities as a Driver for Sustainable Residential Building in Finland: A Regional Innovation System Approach, Journal of Sustainability Research. 2023; 5; (2). https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20230006.

文献评论

相关学者

相关机构