Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Area of protection in S-LCA: human well-being or societal quality

  • SOCIETAL LCA
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 27 May 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

Purpose

The set of stakeholders included in the social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) guideline (UNEP/SETAC 2009) could create confusion as to the target of the assessment: individuals or society. This paper attempts to develop the epistemological foundations of S-LCA in social sciences. Its major discussion is who should be addressed in S-LCA: individuals or society as a whole. This article contributes to the definition of a social life cycle based on sociological perspectives.

Methods

This paper is a critical evaluation of well-being methodologies and sociological perspectives used to analyze the effects of a change in a social system. The two perspectives, individualistic and holistic, have been evaluated based on four criteria: subjectivity, social values, possibility of aggregation of social data and rebound effects. We have examined different points of view in the sociologic discipline to determine which perspective would be more suitable. Insights have been taken from structural functionalist, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theories to answer the troubling debates identified in S-LCA: Can the life cycle defined for LCA be used in S-LCA? More specifically, does S-LCA include the same actors and timeline as LCA? Does aggregation of data of individuals convey the characteristics of a society?

Results and discussion

Organizational or technical changes induce new cost and benefits in the social system. When focusing on the well-being of individuals, little emphasis is directed to the relations between people, and thus social costs and benefits are not valorized. The sociological perspectives that deal with social change (structuralism, functionalism, and symbolic interaction) seek to explain social phenomena based on the relations that are established and affected by a social phenomenon. The sociologic concept has brought insights to the definition of a social life cycle, the object of S-LCA.

Conclusions

This paper is an attempt to bring the attention of S-LCA practitioners to the concept of social change defined by sociologists. Whether society is considered as a sum of individuals or as an independent entity determines our approach as individualistic or holistic. This would obviously influence our perspective in the selection of stakeholders of the life cycle, the boundaries of the analysis, and the indicators to be assessed. We recognize the central social matter of a product system as its contribution to the overall order in a society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 27 May 2019

    The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake.

Notes

  1. Since the boundary between structural-functionalism and functionalism was never rigid (Barnard 2000) we would use the term functionalism through the text which represents the ideas of sociologic discourses pertaining to structuralism, functionalism and structural-functionalism.

  2. It is not an exhaustive literature review by itself

  3. Translated from French: « Ce que produisent les acteurs, ce ne sont pas des choix mais des règles, ce ne sont pas des décisions conformes à ce que demande l’équilibre d’un système, c’est. le système lui-même ».

References

  • Abbott P, Wallace C (2012) Social quality: a way to measure the quality of society. Soc Indic Res 108:153–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antoine J (1999) Quelques remarques sur la construction d’indicateurs du développement durables. In: Les indicateurs de développement durable. Méthodes et perspectives. Ifen Ed. Orléans, Coll. Etudes et Tavaux n° 24, Annexe n°3, 5 p

  • Ashby WR (1956/1999) An introduction to cybernetics. Chapman & Hall Ltd, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard A (2000) Functionalism and structural-functionalism. In: History and theory in anthropology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808111.006

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann H, Arvidsson R, Tong H, Wang Y (2013) Does the production of an airbag injure more people than the airbag saves in traffic? J Ind Ecol 17(4):517–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellenger L (1998) La négociation. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Belton B (2016) Shrimp, prawn and the political economy of social wellbeing in rural Bangladesh. J Rural Stud 45:230–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F (1988) The intrinsic difficulty of predicting impacts: lessons from the James Bay hydro project. Environ Impact Assess Rev 8:201–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernoux P (2004/2010) Sociologie du changement dans les entreprises et les organisations. Points, Paris

  • Blom M, Solmar C (2009) How to socially assess biofuels: a case study of the UNEP/SETAC code of practice for social-economical LCA

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumer H (1969) Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Bocoum I, Macombe C, Revéret J-P (2015) Anticipating impacts on health based on changes in income inequality caused by life cycles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:405–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard M (2006) De l’expérimentation À l’institutionnalisation positive: l’innovation sociale dans le logement communautaire au Québec. Ann Public Coop Econ 77:139–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boudon R, Bourricaud F (1983) Dictionnaire critique de la sociologie. In: Population, 38e année, n°2, pp 422–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Budowski M, Schief S, Sieber R (2016) Precariousness and quality of life—a qualitative perspective on quality of life of households in precarious prosperity in Switzerland and Spain. Appl Res Qual Life 11:1035–1058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter MJ, Fuller C (2015) Symbolic interactionism. Sociopedia. https://doi.org/10.1177/205684601561

  • Collins R (1994) Four sociological traditions. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Copestake J, Camfield L (2009) Measuring subjective wellbeing in Bangaladesh, Ethiopia, Peru and Thailand using a personal life goal satisfaction approach, WeD Working paper 09/45, University of Bath, UK

  • Cragg W, Schwartz MS, Weitzner D, Campbell T (eds) (2009) Corporate social responsibility. Ashgate, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  • Crozier M, Friedberg E (1980) Actors and systems: the politics of collective action, Chicago: University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis K (1960, Spring) Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? Calif Manag Rev 2:70–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jouvenel H (1993) Sur la démarche prospective. Futuribles

  • Diener E, Oishi S, Tay L (2018) Advances in subjective well-being research. Nat Hum Behav 2:253–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • do Carmo BBT, Margni M, Baptiste P (2017) Customized scoring and weighting approaches for quantifying and aggregating results in social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:2007–2017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment (10 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:88–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois-Iorgulescu A-M, Saraiva AKEB, Valle R, Rodrigues LM (2018) How to define the system in social life cycle assessments? A critical review of the state of the art and identification of needed developments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:507–518

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim E (1895/1982) Rules of sociological method. Simon and Schuster, New York City

  • Etzioni A (2018) Happiness is the wrong metric: a liberal communitarian response to populism. Springer International Publishing, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feschet P, Macombe C, Garrabé M, Loeillet D, Saez AR, Benhmad F (2013) Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway: the case of banana industry in Cameroon. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:490–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freidberg S (2018) From behind the curtain: talking about values in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:1410–1414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman M (1962) Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullana i Palmer P, Puig R, Bala A, Baquero G, Riba J, Raugei M (2011) From life cycle assessment to life cycle management: a case study on industrial waste management policy making. J Ind Ecol 15:458–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerson EM (1976) On “quality of life”. Am Sociol Rev 41:793–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1987) La Constitution de la société. In: Sociologie du travail, 30e année no3, Juillet-septembre 1988, pp 494–497

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman E (1983) the interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential address. Am Sociol Rev 48:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am J Sociol 91:481–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grießhammer R, Norris C, Dreyer L et al (2006) Feasibility Study: Integration of Social Aspects into LCA

  • Grubert E (2018) Rigor in social life cycle assessment: improving the scientific grounding of SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:481–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild MZ, Dreyer LC, Jørgensen A (2008) Assessing social impacts in a life cycle perspective—lessons learned. CIRP Ann Manuf 57:21–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hekman SJ (1983) Weber, the ideal type, and contemporary social theory. Univ Notre Dame Pr

  • Herfeld C (2018) Rethinking the individualism-holism debate. Philos Soc Sci 48:247–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernes G (1976) Structural change in social processes. Am J Sociol 82:513–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstetter P, Baumgartner T, Scholz RW (2000) Modelling the valuesphere and the ecosphere: integrating the decision makers’ perspectives into LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holme R, Watts P (2000) Corporate social responsibility: making good business sense. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunkeler D (2006) Societal LCA methodology and case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:371–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Wellbeing Group (2013) Personal wellbeing index, 5th edn. Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University, Melbourne http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing-index/index.php. Accessed 12 April 2017

  • Iofrida N, De Luca AI, Strano A, Gulisano G (2018a) Can social research paradigms justify the diversity of approaches to social life cycle assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:464–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iofrida N, Strano A, Gulisano G, De Luca AI (2018b) Why social life cycle assessment is struggling in development? Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:201–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management — life cycle assessment — requirements and guidelines

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO 26000 (2010) Guidance on social responsibility, https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:26000:ed-1:v1:en. Accessed 4 Dec 2017

  • Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:96–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen A, Hauschild MZ, Jørgensen MS (2010) Developing the social life cycle assessment:-addressing issues of validity and usability. Technical University of DenmarkDanmarks Tekniske Universitet, Department of Manufacturing EngineeringInstitut for Procesteknik

  • Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products: (with comments by Helias a. Udo de Haes, p. 95). Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:89–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruse SA, Flysjö A, Kasperczyk N, Scholz AJ (2009) Socioeconomic indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment—an application to salmon production systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:8–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0040-x

  • Kühnen M, Hahn R (2017) Indicators in social life cycle assessment: a review of frameworks, theories, and empirical experience: indicators in social life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 21:1547–1565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kühnen M, Hahn R (2018) From SLCA to positive sustainability performance measurement: a two-tier Delphi study: sustainability performance measurement. J Ind Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12762

  • Lagarde V, Macombe C (2013) Designing the social life cycle of products from the systematic competitive model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:172–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange O (1942) The foundations of welfare economics. Econometrica 10:215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefebvre H (1974/1991) The production of space, Blackwell Publishing Hoboken

  • Leroy M (2005) Module d’enseignement en négociation, AgroPariTech, Montpellier Levy a (1986) second-order planned change: definition and conceptualization. Organ Dyn 15:5–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy A (1986) Second-order planned change: definition and conceptualization. Organ Dyn 15:5–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin K, Herrmann P (2015) Introduction. In: Lin K, Herrmann P (eds) Social quality theory: a new perspective on social development. Berghahn Books, New York City, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu B (1976) Social quality of life indicators for small metropolitan areas in America. Int J Social Econ 3:198–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macombe C (2013) How can one predict social effects and impacts? In: Social LCAs—socio-economic effects in value chains, Fruitrop Thema. CIRAD/IRSTEA

  • Macombe C (2016) Introdution In: Researcher school book, Social evaluation of the life cycle, application to the agriculture and agri-food sectors, FruiTrop Thema, Sète-France

  • Maesen LJGVD, Walker A (2011) Social Quality: From Theory to Indicators. Palgrave Macmillan

  • March JG (2006) Rationality, foolishness, and adaptive intelligence. Strateg Manag J 27:201–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathe S (2014) Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1506–1514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meltzer BN, Petras JW (1970) The Chicago and Iowa schools of symbolic interactionism. In: Human Nature. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Mermet L (1992) Stratégies pour la gestion de l’environnement: La nature comme jeu de société ? Editions L’Harmattan, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien M, Doig A, Clift R (1996) Social and environmental life cycle assessment (SELCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 1:231–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parackal M (2016) A global happiness scale for measuring wellbeing: a test of immunity against hedonism. J Happiness Stud 17:1529–1545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Revéret J-P (2010) Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:164–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons T (1937/1968)) The structure of social action. The Free Press, Winnipeg

    Google Scholar 

  • Petti L, Ugaya CML, Di Cesare S (2014) Systematic review of social-life cycle assessment (S-LCA) case studies. Soc LCA Prog FruiTrop Montp

  • Reiss J, Sprenger J (2017) Scientific objectivity. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Winter 2017. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Reitinger C, Dumke M, Barosevcic M, Hillerbrand R (2011) A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:380–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynaud JD (1997) Les règles du jeu : l'action collective et la régulation sociale. Armand Colin, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey-Valette H, Cunningham S (2003) Evaluation of the social impact of fishery management measures. In: The Introduction of Right-based Management in Fisheries. Bruxelles

  • Roy B (1985) Méthodologie multicritère d'aide à la décision. Economica, Paris,. France 423 pages

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakellariou N (2018) A historical perspective on the engineering ideologies of sustainability: the case of SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:445–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013) Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: part 1. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1653–1672

  • Seedhouse D (1995) Well-being’: health promotion's red herring. Health Promotion Int 10:61–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin KLF, Colwill JA, Young RIM (2015) Expanding the scope of LCA to include ‘societal value’: a framework and methodology for assessing positive product impacts. Procedia CIRP 29:366–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sierra LA, Pellicer E, Yepes V (2017) Method for estimating the social sustainability of infrastructure projects. Environ Impact Assess Rev 65:41–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siltaniemi A, Kauppinen M-L (2005) The view from the international council on social welfare. Eur J Social Qual 5(1):275–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Smetanin P, Stiff D (2016) Investing in Ontario’s public infrastructure: a prosperity at risk perspective, with an analysis of the greater Toronto and Hamilton area. The Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis, 2015. Invest Ontario’s Infrastruct Prosper Risk Perspect Anal Gt Tor Hamilt Area 4:2

    Google Scholar 

  • Soja EW (2010) Seeking spatial justice. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sorokin P (1959) Social and cultural mobility. Free Press, Winnipeg

    Google Scholar 

  • Sousa-Zomer TT, Cauchick Miguel PA (2018) The main challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA) to support the social impacts analysis of product-service systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:607–616

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner GA (1971) Business and society. New York: Random House.Subramanian K, Yung WKC (2018) Modeling social life cycle assessment framework for an electronic screen product – a case study of an integrated desktop computer. J Clean Prod 197:417–434

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss AL (1993) Continual permutations of action. Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian K, Yung WKC (2018) Modeling social life cycle assessment framework for an electronic screen product – a case study of an integrated desktop computer. J Clean Prod 197:417–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Šubrt J (2017) Homo sociologicus and the society of individuals. Hist Sociol 2017:9–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Sureau S, Mazijn B, Garrido SR, Achten WMJ (2017) Social life-cycle assessment frameworks: a review of criteria and indicators proposed to assess social and socioeconomic impacts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:904–920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1336-5

  • Sureau S, Mazijn B, Garrido SR, Achten WMJ (2018) Social life-cycle assessment frameworks: a review of criteria and indicators proposed to assess social and socioeconomic impacts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:904–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swarr TE (2009) Societal life cycle assessment—could you repeat the question? Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(4):285–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swarr T (2011) A capability framework for managing social and environmental concerns. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:593–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trommsdorff G (2000) Subjective experience of social change in individual development. In: Bynner J, Silbereisen RK (eds) Adversity and challenge in life in the new Germany and in England. Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 87–122

  • UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. http://www.cdo.ugent.be/publicaties/280.guidelines-sLCA.pdf. Accessed 22 March 2016

  • UNEP/SETAC (2013) The methodological sheets for subcategories in social life cycle assessment (S-LCA): pre-publication version. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • van Haaster B, Ciroth A, Fontes J, Wood R, Ramirez A (2017) Development of a methodological framework for social life-cycle assessment of novel technologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:423–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay F, Esteves AM, Aucamp I, Franks DM (2015) Social impact assessment: guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects. International Association for Impact Assessment

  • Veenhoven R (1994) Is happiness a trait? Tests of the theory that a better society does not make people any happier. Social Indicators Research 32:101–160

  • von Geibler J, Liedtke C, Wallbaum H, Schaller S (2006) Accounting for the social dimension of sustainability: experiences from the biotechnology industry. Bus Strategy Environ 15:334–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1949) On the methodology of the social sciences. The Free Press, Glencoe, Ill

    Google Scholar 

  • Weeratunge N, Béné C, Siriwardane R, Charles A, Johnson D, Allison EH, Nayak PK, Badjeck MC (2014) Small-scale fisheries through the wellbeing lens. Fish Fish 15:255–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema BP (2001) Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management Technical University of Denmark

  • Weidema BP (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:89–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema B, Thrane M (2007) Comments on the development of harmonized method for sustainability assessment of technologies (SAT). Sustain Assess Technol

  • White SC (2009) Bringing wellbeing into development practice, working paper 09/44. University of Bath, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Wish NB (1986) Are we really measuring the quality of life? Well-being has subjective dimensions, as well as objective ones. Am J Econ Sociol 45(1):93–99

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wu R, Yang D, Chen J (2014) Social life cycle assessment revisited. Sustainability 6:4200–4226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A, Amerighi O, Buttol P (2011) Strenghts or bias in social LCA? Int J Life Cycle Assessment 16:596–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zanchi L, Delogu M, Zamagni A, Pierini M (2018) Analysis of the main elements affecting social LCA applications: challenges for the automotive sector. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:519–535

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zeeman C (1976) Catastrophe theory. Sci Am 234:65–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the support of the European Commission under Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate Programme. This work was conducted as part of a PhD thesis supported by the Agricultural Transformation by Innovation (AGTRAIN) Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate Program, funded by the EACEA (Education, Audiovisual, and Culture Executive Agency) of the European Commission, grant number 2015–006. We would also like to acknowledge the comments of Bo Weidema and Catherine Macombe on the preliminary draft and the two anonyms reviewers for their constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Catania, Catania, Italy

    Yazdan Soltanpour & Iuri Peri

  2. MOISA, Montpellier SupAgro, CIRAD, CIHEAM-IAMM, INRA, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Yazdan Soltanpour & Leïla Temri

Authors
  1. Yazdan Soltanpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Iuri Peri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leïla Temri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yazdan Soltanpour.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Marzia Traverso

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised: The spelling of the first author’s name is “Yazdan Soltanpour”.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Soltanpour, Y., Peri, I. & Temri, L. Area of protection in S-LCA: human well-being or societal quality. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24, 2073–2087 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01620-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01620-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation