The level of implementing sustainable development goal "Industry, innovation and infrastructure" of Agenda 2030 in the European Union countries: Application of MCDM methods

• Authors: Jarosław Brodny , Magdalena Tutak

Abstracts

EN

Research background: Sustainable development of the modern world represents an opportunity to preserve economic growth and technological progress, as well as social development, without limiting the possibilities of this development for past generations. The directions of this development are included in the 17 goals and 169 tasks of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The achievement of these goals and the implementation of the adopted tasks is a huge challenge for individual countries and regions. This also applies to the European Union (EU), where economic development is closely linked to environmental protection and social inclusion. Of key importance in this context is Objective 9 of Agenda 2030, and thus its level of implementation in the EU-27 countries is the aim of the research presented in this paper. Purpose of the article: The research involved assessing the level of EU countries in terms of building stable infrastructure, promoting sustainable industrialization and fostering innovation, i.e., the main areas of Goal 9 of Agenda 2030. Methods: The assessment was based on the EU-27 countries' sustainable development index (SDG9) determined with the use of 14 indicators characterizing these areas between 2015-2020. The basis of the developed methodology was a multi criteria decision making approach (MCDM methods). TOPSIS, WASPAS and EDAS methods were used to determine the sustainability index, and the Entropy, CRITIC and standard deviation (SD) methods were used to determine weights for the adopted indicators. In addition, the use of the Spearman's and Kendall's Tau non-parametric tests enabled the analysis of the relationship between the SDG9 index and the basic economic, environmental and energy parameters, as well as the digitalization of the countries under study. Findings & value added: The results show that the EU-27 countries vary widely in terms of implementing Sustainable Development Goal 9 of Agenda 2030 over the analyzed period. Now, the most advanced in this respect are Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Finland, and Sweden. By contrast, substantial problems are found in Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal, and Lithuania. The results also provide an opportunity to trace changes in the value of the designated index in individual countries, and in groups of countries of the "old" and "new" EU. These results significantly enrich the knowledge of the effectiveness of implementing Goal 9 of Agenda 2030 in the EU-27 countries and the relationship between the development of individual countries and sustainable development economy. These findings can also be used to create new EU-27 strategies for sustainable and solidarity-based development of the whole EU. In addition, the results can be helpful to decision-makers as they highlight important indicators related to innovation, industrialization and infrastructure that should be considered when formulating a country's sustainable development strategy. The added value of the study is the research procedure presented, which can be used in analyses on the study of various issues related to sustainable development for other groups of regions.

Keywords

EN

sustainable development; innovativeness; EU-27; MCDM methods

• Publisher: Instytut Badań Gospodarczych
• Journal: Oeconomia Copernicana
• Year: 2023
• Volume: 14
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 47-102

Dates

published

2023

Contributors

author

Jarosław Brodny

• Silesian University of Technology

• https://orcid.org/0000000268074431

author

Magdalena Tutak

• Silesian University of Technology

• https://orcid.org/0000000347818697

References

• Achour H., & Belloumi M. (2016). Investigating the causal relationship between transport infrastructure, transport energy consumption and economic growth in Tunisia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 56, 988?998. doi: 10.1016/j. rser.2015.12.023.
• Adenle, A., Azadi, H., & Arbiol, J. (2015). Global assessment of technological in-novation for climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing world. Journal of Environmental Management, 161, 261?275. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015 .05.040.
• Aytekin, A., Ecer, F., Korucuk, S., & Karamaşa, Ç. (2022). Global innovation effi-ciency assessment of EU member and candidate countries via DEA-EATWIOS multi-criteria methodology. Technology in Society, 68, 101896. doi: 10.1016/j.techs oc.2022.101896.
• Bacior, S., & Prus, B. (2018). Infrastructure development and its influence on agri-cultural land and regional sustainable development. Ecological Informatics, 44, 82?93. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2018.02.001.
• Barbier, E. B. (1987). The concept of sustainable economic development. Environmental Conservation, 14, 101?110. doi: 10.1017/S0376892900011449.
• Bartolini, F., Gava, O., & Brunori, G. (2017). Biogas and EU?s 2020 targets: Evidence from a regional case study in Italy. Energy Policy, 109, 510?519. doi: 10.1016/j.enp ol.2017.07.039.
• Bekhet, H., & Latif, N. (2018). The impact of technological innovation and govern-ance institution quality on Malaysia's sustainable growth: Evidence from a dynamic relationship. Technology in Society, 54, 27?40. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.01 .014.
• Beynon, M., Jones, P., & Pickernell, D. (2023). Evaluating EU-Region level innova-tion readiness: A longitudinal analysis using principal component analysis and a constellation graph index approach. Journal of Business Research, 159,113703. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113703.
• Berawi, M. A. (2019). The role of industry 4.0 in achieving sustainable develop-ment Goals. International Journal of Technology, 10, 644?647. doi: 10.14716/ijtech.v10i4. 3341.
• Börje, J., Hans, L., & Maxim, S. (2015). European R&D efficiency. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 24, 140?158. doi: 10.1080/10438599.2014.897857.
• Bocchini, P., Frangopol, D., Ummenhofer, T., & Zinke, T. (2014). Resilience and sustainability of civil infrastructure: Toward a unified approach. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 20, 1?16. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000177.
• Bogers, M., Biermann, F., Kalfagianni, A., & Kim, R.E.(2022). Sustainable devel-opment goals fail to advance policy integration: A large-n text analysis of 159 international organizations. Environmental Science & Policy 138, 134?145. doi: 10.10 16/j.envsci.2022.10.002.
• Bonilla, S. H., Silva, H. R. O., Silva, M. T., Gonçalves, R. F., & Sacomano, J. B. (2018). Industry 4.0 and sustainability implications: A scenario-based analysis of the impacts and challenges. Sustainability, 10, 3740. doi: 10.3390/su10103740.
• Brodny, J., & Tutak, M. (2021). Assessing sustainable energy development in the central and eastern European countries and analyzing its diversity. Science of the Total Environment, 801, 149745. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149745.
• Brundtland, G. H. (1987). In our common future. New York: Brundtland Commis-sion.
• Ciani, O., Armeni, P., Boscolo, P. R., Cavazza M., Jommi, C., & Tarricone, R. (2016). De innovatione: The concept of innovation for medical technologies and its implications for healthcare policy-making. Health Policy and Technology, 5(1), 47?64. doi: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2015.10.005.
• Cigu, E., Agheorghiesei, D. T., Gavrilu?ă, A. F., & Toader, E. (2019). Transport in-frastructure development, public performance and long-run economic growth: A case study for the Eu-28 countries. Sustainability, 11, 67. doi: 10.3390/su11010067.
• Cirella, G. T., Bąk, M., Kozlak, A., Pawłowska, B., & Borkowski, P. (2019). Transport innovations for elderly people. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 30, 100381. doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2019.100381,
• Cohen, J. P. (2010). The broader effects of transportation infrastructure: Spatial econometrics and productivity approaches. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 46, 317?326. doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2009.11.003.
• Correia, A. G., Winter, M. G., & Puppala, A. J. (2016). A review of sustainable ap-proaches in transport infrastructure geotechnics. Transportation Geotechnics, 7, 21?28. doi: 10.1016/j.trgeo.2016.03.003.
• Czyżewski, A., Grzyb, A., Matuszczak, A., & Michałowska, M. (2021). Factors for bioeconomy development in EU countries with different overall levels of eco-nomic development. Energies, 14, 3182. doi: 10.3390/en14113182.
• Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Computers and Operations Research, 22(7), 763?770. doi: 10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H.
• Eurostat database. Retrieved form: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (05.09.2022).
• Fura, B., Wojnar, J., & Kasprzyk, B. (2017). Ranking and classification of EU coun-tries regarding their levels of implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 165, 968?979. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.088.
• Gomes, S., Ferreira, J., Lopes, J. M., & Farinha, L. (2022). The impacts of the entre-preneurial conditions on economic growth: Evidence from OECD countries. Economies, 10(7), 163 doi: 10.3390/economies10070163.
• Gródek-Szostak, Z., Suder, M., Kusa, R., Szeląg-Sikora, A., Duda, J., & Niemiec, M. (2020). Renewable energy promotion instruments used by innovation brokers in a technology transfer network. Case study of the enterprise Europe net-work. Energies, 13, 5752. doi: 10.3390/en13215752.
• Gunawan, J., Permatasari, P., & Tilt, C. (2020). Sustainable development goal dis-closures: Do they support responsible consumption and production? Journal of Cleaner Production, 246, 118989. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118989.
• Hwang, C., & Yoon. K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applica-tions, a state-of-the-art survey. Berlin: Springer.
• Haraguchi, N., Cheng, C., & Smeets, E. (2017). The importance of manufacturing in economic development: Has this changed? World Development, 93, 293?315. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.013.
• Heilig, L., & Voss, S. (2015). A scientometric analysis of public transport research. Journal of Public Transportation, 18, 111?141. doi: 10.5038/2375-0901.18.2.8.
• Hess, J. (2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in Bulgaria and Romania: A compara-tive analysis. Thunderbird International Business Review, 62, 489?501. doi: 10.1002 /tie.22154.
• Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R., Suman, R., & Gonzalez, E. (2022). Understanding the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in improving environmental sus-tainability. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 203?217. doi: 10.1016/j.susoc.2022. 01.008.
• Kardos, M. (2012). The relationship between entrepreneurship, innovation and sustainable development. Research on European Union countries. Procedia Economics and Finance, 3, 1030?1035. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(12)00269-9.
• Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Olfat, L., & Turskis, Z. (2015). Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26, 435?451. doi: 10.15388/Infor matica.2015.57.
• K?lk?ş, Ş. (2016). Sustainable development of energy, water and environment sys-tems index for Southeast European cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 130, 222?234. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.121.
• Kuzior, A., Pidorycheva, I., Liashenko, V., Shevtsova, H., & Shvets, N. (2022). As-sessment of national innovation ecosystems of the EU countries and Ukraine in the interests of their sustainable development. Sustainability, 14(14), 8487 doi: 10.3390/su14148487.
• Kynčlová, P., Upadhyaya, S., & Nice, T. (2020). Composite index as a measure on achieving Sustainable Development Goal 9 (SDG-9) industry-related targets: The SDG-9 index. Applied Energy, 265, 114755. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.1147 55.
• Le Blanc, D. (2015). Towards integration at last? The Sustainable Development Goals as a network of targets. Sustainable Development, 23(3), 176?187. doi: 10.1002/sd.1582.
• Liao, Q., Wang, X., Ling, D., Xiao Z., & Huang, H. (2011). Equipment reliability analysis based on the Mean-rank method of two-parameter Weibull distribu-tion. In 2011 international conference on quality, reliability, risk, maintenance, and safety engineering (pp. 361?364). IEEE doi: 10.1109/ICQR2MSE.2011.5976631.
• Liu, Y., Li, Z., & Yin, X. (2018). Environmental regulation, technological innova-tion and energy consumption-a cross-region analysis in China. Journal of Clean-er Production, 203, 885?897. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.277.
• Luthra, S., Kumar A., Zavadskas, E. K., Mangla, S .K., & Garza-Reyes, J. A. (2020). Industry 4.0 as an enabler of sustainability diffusion in supply chain: An analy-sis of influential strength of drivers in an emerging economy. International Journal of Production Research, 58, 1505?1521. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1660828.
• MacDonald, A., Clarke, A., Ordonez-Ponce, E., Chai, Z., & Andreasen, J. (2020). Sustainability managers: The job roles and competencies of building sustaina-ble cities and communities. Public Performance & Management Review, 43, 1413?1444. doi: 10.1080/15309576.2020.1803091.
• Małkowska, A., Urbaniec, M., & Kosała, M. (2021). The impact of digital transfor-mation on European countries: Insights from a comparative analysis. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 16(2), 325?355. doi: 10.24136/eq.2021.012.
• Medda, G., & Piga, C. (2014). Technological spillovers and productivity in Italian manufacturing firms. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 41, 428?429. doi: 10.1007 /s11123-013-0351-1.
• Miłek, D. (2022). Disparities in the level of regional technical infrastructure devel-opment in Poland: Multicriteria analysis. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(4), 1087?1113. doi: 10.24136/eq.2022.036.
• Modgil, S., Gupta, S., & Bhushan, B. (2020). Building a living economy through modern information decision support systems and UN sustainable develop-ment goals. Production Planning & Control, 31, 1?21. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2019.169 5916.
• Mulliner, E., Malys, N., & Maliene, V. (2016). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega, 59, 146?156. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013.
• Oláh, J., Aburumman, N., Popp, J., Khan, M. A., Haddad, H., & Kitukutha, N. (2020). Impact of industry 4.0 on environmental sustainability. Sustainability, 12, 4674. doi: 10.3390/su12114674.
• Olaoye, I., Ayinde, O., Ajewole, O., & Adebisi, L. (2021). The role of research and development (R&D) expenditure and governance on economic growth in se-lected African countries. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 13, 663?670. doi: 10.1080/20421338.2020.1799300.
• Omri, A. (2018). Entrepreneurship, sectoral outputs and environmental improve-ment: international evidence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 128, 45?56. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.10.016.
• Omri, A. (2020). Technological innovation and sustainable development: Does the stage of development matter? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 83, 106398. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106398.
• Panetto, H., Iung, B., Ivanov, D., Weichhart, G., & Wang, X. (2019). Challenges for the cyber-physical manufacturing enterprises of the future. Annual Reviews in Control, 47, 200?213. doi: 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2019.02.002.
• Pece, M., Oros, S., & Salisteanu, F. (2015). Innovation and economic growth: An empirical analysis for CEE countries. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 461?467. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00874-6.
• Pegkas, P., Staikouras, C., & Tsamadias, C. (2019). Does research and development expenditure impact innovation? Evidence from the European Union countries. Journal of Policy Modeling, 41, 1005?1025. doi: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2019.07.001.
• Peroni, C., & Ferreira, I. S. G. (2012). Competition and innovation in Luxembourg. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 12, 93?117. doi: 10.1007/s10842-011-0101-x.
• Pradhan, R., Arvin, M., Nair, M., & Bennett, S. (2020). Sustainable economic growth in the European Union: The role of ICT, venture capital, and innovation. Re-view of Financial Economics, 38, 34?62. doi: 10.1002/rfe.1064.
• Prus, P., & Sikora M. (2021). The impact of transport infrastructure on the sustaina-ble development of the region?case study. Agriculture, 11, 279. doi: 10.3390/ag riculture11040279.
• Rasmus, L., Kraemer-Mbula, E., & Rakas, M. (2021). Innovation in developing countries: Examining two decades of research. Innovation and Development, 11, 189?210. doi: 10.1080/2157930X.2021.1989647.
• Raszkowski, A., & Bartniczak, B. (2019). On the road to sustainability: Implementa-tion of the 2030 Agenda Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in Poland. Sustainability, 11, 366. doi: 10.3390/su11020366.
• Ringel, M., Schlomann, B., Krail, M., & Rohde, C. (2016). Towards a green econo-my in Germany? The role of energy efficiency policies. Applied Energy, 179, 1293?1303. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.063.
• Roszko-Wójtowicz, E., Dańska-Borsiak, B., Grzelak, M. M., & Pleśniarska, A. (2022). In search of key determinants of innovativeness in the regions of the Visegrad group countries. Oeconomia Copernicana, 13(4), 1015?1045. doi: 10.24136/oc.2022. 029.
• Sabatini, A., Cucculelli, M., & GregoriG. L. (2022). Business model innovation and digital technology: The perspective of incumbent Italian small and medium-sized firms. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 10(3), 23?35. doi: 10.15678/EBER.2022.100302.
• Sakiewicz, P., Piotrowski, K., Rajca, M., Maj, I., Kalisz, S., Ober, J., Karwot, J., & Pagilla, K. R. (2022). Innovative technological approach for the cyclic nutrients adsorption by post-digestion sewage sludge-based ash co-formed with some nanostructural additives under a circular economy framework. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 11119. doi: 10.3390/ijer ph191711119.
• Sanders, M., Stenkula, M., Fritsch, M., Herrmann, A. M., Latifi, G., Páger, B., Szerb, L., Terragno Bogliaccini, E., & Wyrwich, M. (2020). A reform strategy for ger-many. In M. Sanders, A. Marx & M. Stenkula (eds). The entrepreneurial society. International studies in entrepreneurship, 44 (pp. 163?202). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-61007-7_7.
• Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47, 1554?1567. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011.
• Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge: Harvard Uni-versity Press.
• Senise, R. S., Yogui, R., & Cirne, L. F. (2021). Role of science, technology, and inno-vation towards SDGS. In W. Leal Filho, A. Marisa Azul, L. Brandli, A. Lange Salvia, & T. Wall (Eds.). Partnerships for the goals. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustaina-ble Development Goals (pp. 1067?1078). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-9596 3-4_90.
• Siksnelyte-Butkiene, I., Karpavicius, T., Streimikiene, D., & Balezentis, T. (2022). The achievements of climate change and energy policy in the European Union. Energies, 15(14), 5128. doi: 10.3390/en15145128.
• Skvarciany, V., Lapinskaite, I., & Volskyte, G. (2021). Circular economy as assis-tance for sustainable development in OECD countries. Oeconomia Copernicana, 12(3), 671?700. doi: 10.24136/oc.2021.001.
• Sobczak, E., Bartniczak, B., & Raszkowski, A. (2021). Implementation of the No Poverty Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) in Visegrad Group (V4). Sustainability, 13, 1030. doi: 10.3390/su13031030.
• Sokolov-Mladenović, S., Cvetanović, S., & Mladenović, I. (2016). R&D expenditure and economic growth: EU28 evidence for the period 2002?2012. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 29, 1005?1020. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2016.1211 948.
• Sonobe, T. (2019). Middle-income trap in emerging states. In T. Shiraishi & T. Sonobe (Eds). Emerging states and economies. Emerging-economy state and interna-tional policy studies (pp. 153?177). Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-2634-9_7.
• Sustainable Development Report Retrieved form: https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/ chapters (15.10.2022)
• Szirmai, A. (2012). Industrialisation as an engine of growth in developing coun-tries, 1950?2005. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23. 406?420. doi: 10.1016/j .strueco.2011.01.005.
• Szopik-Depczyńska, D., Kędzierska-Szczepaniak, K., Szczepaniak, K., Cheba, K., Gajda, W., & Ioppolo, G. (2018). Innovation in sustainable development: An investigation of the EU context using 2030 agenda indicators. Land Use Policy, 79, 251?262. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.004.
• Świadek, A., Dzikowski, P., Gorączkowska, J., & Tomaszewski, M. (2022). The national innovation system in a catching-up country: Empirical evidence based on micro data of a Triple Helix in Poland. Oeconomia Copernicana, 13(2), 511?540. doi: 10.24136/oc.2022.016.
• Thacker, S., Adshead, D., Fay, M., Hallegatte, S., Harvey, M., Meller, H., O?Regan, N., Rozenberg, J., Watkins, G., & Hall, J. (2019). Infrastructure for sustainable development. Nature Sustainability, 2, 324?331. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0256-8.
• Tsegaye, M. (2023). Impacts of internal R&D on firms? performance and energy consumption: Evidence from Ethiopian firms. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 7, 47?67. doi: 10.1016/j.ijis.2022.09.001.
• Tutak, M., & Brodny, J. (2022). Business digital maturity in Europe and its implica-tion for open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8, 27. doi: 10.3390/joitmc8010027.
• United Nations (1992). Conference on environment & development. Rio de Janer-io, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. AGENDA 21. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelo pment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (25.10.2022).
• United Nations (2000). Millennium declaration, 2000.
• United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development(A/RES/70/1). New York: UN General Assembly. Retrieved from https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (20.02.2023).
• Valaskova, K., Vochozka, M., & Lăzăroiu, G. (2022). Immersive 3D technologies, spatial computing and visual perception algorithms, and event modeling and forecasting tools on blockchain based metaverse platforms. Analysis and Metaphysics, 21, 74?90. doi: 10.22381/am2120225.
• Verdugo, G., & Wright, T. (2020). Relationship between innovation and sustaina-bility in Latin American countries: Differences by perceptual characteristics of early-stage entrepreneurs. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1?21. doi: 10.1080/23 311975.2020.1831766.
• Vinuesa, R., Azizpour, H., Leite, I. Balaam, M., Dignum, V., Domisch, S., Fellander, A., Langhans, S., Tegmark, M., & Nerini, F. (2020). The role of artificial intelli-gence in achieving the sustainable development goals. Nature Communications, 11, 233. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-14108-y.
• Vyas-Doorgapersad, S. (2022). The use of digitalization (ICTs) in achieving sus-tainable development goals. Global Journal of Emerging Market Economies, 14(2), 265?278. doi: 10.1177/09749101211067295.
• Xu, K., Loh, L., Liang, L., & Mei, R. (2023). Heterogeneous effects of influencing factors on innovation performance: Evidence from European Union countries. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2022.2163889.
• Ziemba, P. (2022). Application framework of multi-criteria methods in sustaina-bility assessment. Energies, 15(23), 9201. doi: 10.3390/en15239201.
• Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., & Zakarevicius, A. (2012). Optimi-zation of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika Ir Elektrotechnika, 122, 3?6. doi: 10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810.

Identifiers

DOI

10.24136/oc.2023.002

Biblioteka Nauki

19322700