Submitted:
12 April 2025
Posted:
15 April 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. Global CE Frameworks and Municipal Applications
2.2. CE in the GCC: Challenges and Emerging Trends
2.3. Saudi Vision 2030 and Circular Economy Synergies
2.4. Synthesis of Global, Regional, and Local Circular Economy Integration
2.5. Research Gaps
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Settings
3.2. Data Collection and Analysis
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Demographic Profile of Respondents
4.2. Current Readiness for CE Adoption in the DMA
4.3. CE Priorities and Opportunities in the DMA
4.4. Barriers to CE Adoption in the DMA
4.5. Policy and Investment Recommendations
4.6. Final Insights
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 127, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Towards a Circular Economy: Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition; Ellen MacArthur Foundation: Wight, UK, 2015; Available online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org (accessed on 5 January 2025).
- Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, J. Circular cities: Strategies for governing urban resource efficiency. Urban Stud. 2019, 56, 2746–2762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Circular Economy Action Plan; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu (accessed on 11 January 2025).
- Circle Economy. The circularity gap report 2021. Amsterdam: Circle Economy, 2021. Available online: https://www.circularity-gap.world (accessed on 12 January 2025).
- Circle Economy. Circularity Gap Report 2022. Amsterdam: Circle Economy, 2022. Available online: https://www.circularity-gap.world (accessed on 12 January 2025).
- Circle Economy. Circularity Gap Report 2023. Amsterdam: Circle Economy, 2023. Available online: https://www.circularity-gap.world (accessed on 12 January 2025).
- Dammam Municipality. Annual Sustainability Report; Dammam Municipality Publication; 2022.
- Dammam Municipality. Dammam Urban Sustainability Plan; Dammam Municipality Publication; 2023.
- Saudi Vision 2030. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Vision 2023; 2016. Available online: https://www.vision2030.gov.sa org (accessed on 5 January 2025).
- Saudi Vision 2030. National Transformation Program: Sustainable Development Goals; Official Vision 2030 Document; 2021.
- Alnajem, M.; Elheddad, M.; Alfar, A.J. Circular economy in the Gulf Cooperation Council: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 311, 127612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alraouf, A.A. The new urban paradigm in the Gulf: Toward sustainable urbanism in Saudi Arabia. Cities 2021, 117, 103335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alshehry, A.S.; Belloumi, M. The impact of energy subsidies on sustainable resource use: Evidence from hydrocarbon-dependent economies. Energy Policy 2020, 145, 111713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority (SAGIA). Financing Circular Economy Transitions in Saudi Arabia: Challenges and Opportunities in Green Bonds and Carbon Markets; SAGIA Publication. 2023. Available online: https://www.sagia.gov.sa (accessed on 22 February 2025).
- Babbitt, C.W.; et al. Urban mining for circular economies: A GIS-based analysis of Brussels’ e-waste potential. Resour. Policy 2022, 78, 102876. [Google Scholar]
- van Stijn, A.; Smith, J. K.; Doe, R. L. Digital material passports for circular construction. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 292, 126000. [Google Scholar]
- City of São Paulo. (2019). Construction and demolition waste recycling regulations (Law No. 16.260/2019); 2019. Available online: https://legislacao.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/leis/lei-16250-de-17-de-janeiro-de-2019 (accessed on 12 January 2025).
- Kleis, H.; Dalager, S. Copenhagen’s Waste-to-Energy Success; Nordic Council of Ministers: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- PUB Singapore. Annual Report 2022; PUB Singapore: Singapore, 2022; Available online: https://www.pub.gov.sg (accessed on 12 January 2025).
- City of Toronto. Circular Economy Leadership Plan. 2021. Available online: https://www.toronto.ca (accessed on 12 January 2025).
- Zaman, A.U. Zero waste in San Francisco: A decade of progress. Waste Manag. 2020, 105, 534–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ADEME. Anti-Waste Law in France: Key Measures; ADEME: Angers, France, 2021; Available online: https://www.ademe.fr (accessed on 5 January 2025).
- Métropole de Lyon. (2022). Circular fashion hubs: Roadmap for sustainable textiles. 2022. Available online: https://www.grandlyon.com/en/circular-fashion (accessed on 5 January 2025).
- Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan; 2021. Industrial resource efficiency policy framework; 2021. Available online: https://www.meti.go.jp/english/policy/index.html (accessed on 5 January 2025).
- Department for Environment, Food; Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Landfill Tax and Its Impact on Waste Management. GOV.UK. 2021. Available online: https://www.gov.uk (accessed on 12 January 2025).
- Bakıcı, T.; Almirall, E.; Wareham, J. IoT-driven smart waste management systems: A case study of Barcelona’s urban innovation. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 73, 103128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milan Urban Food Policy Pact. Annual Progress Report 2023: Redistributing Surplus Food Through Public-Private Partnerships; Milan Urban Food Policy Pact Secretariat: Milan, Italy, 2023; Available online: https://www.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org (accessed on 14 January 2025).
- van Hillegersberg, J.; Overbeek, S.; van Heck, E. Blockchain-enabled traceability for circular steel supply chains: A case study of Rotterdam Port. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 248, 108492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joshi, R.; Ahmed, S. Institutional fragmentation and waste management inefficiencies: A case study of New Delhi’s circular economy challenges. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2022, 24, 345–362. [Google Scholar]
- Sugiura, T.; Nakamura, K.; Fujii, H. Overcoming cultural resistance to food waste recycling: Gamification and behavioral interventions in Tokyo. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 168, 105432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Climate Bonds Initiative. (CBI). The role of green bonds in financing climate-resilient cities. CBI Annual Report; 2022.
- Rueda, S. Superblocks: A New Urban Model for Sustainable and Equitable Cities; Urban Ecology Agency of Barcelona: 2019.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Informal Waste Pickers and Circular Economy Transition: A Case Study of Nairobi’s Recycling Sector; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2022; Available online: https://www.unep.org (accessed on 25 February 2025).
- International Monetary Fund (IMF). Fiscal Reforms for Sustainability in Hydrocarbon-Dependent Economies - Policy Report; IMF: Washington, DC, USA, 2022; Available online: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Policy-Papers/Issues/2022/03/15/Fiscal-Reforms-for-Sustainability-in-Hydrocarbon-Dependent-Economies-515132 (accessed on 25 February 2025).
- World Bank. Water Scarcity and Circular Solutions in the GCC; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2023; Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/opinion/2024/03/26/from-scarcity-to-sustainability-the-gcc-s-journey-towards-water-security (accessed on 27 February 2025).
- Statista. Share of Clothing Discarded Within One Year of Purchase Worldwide in 2023; Statista: Hamburg, Germany, 2023; Available online: https://www.statista.com (accessed on 2 January 2025).
- Dubai Municipality. Waste-to-Resource Initiative Progress Report; Dubai Municipality: Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- NEOM. Pioneering Sustainable Construction: 3D-Printed Buildings Using Recycled Materials; NEOM. 2023. Available online: https://www.neom.com (accessed on 2 January 2025).
- Supreme Committee for Delivery; Legacy. Qatar FIFA World Cup 2022 Sustainability Report: Circular Economy in Construction; Supreme Committee for Delivery & Legacy: 2022. Available online: https://www.sc.qa (accessed on 7 January 2025).
- Ministry of Energy and Climate Action (MECA) Oman. Circular Carbon Economy Initiative: Repurposing CO₂ for Biofuel Production; Sultanate of Oman: 2022. Available online: https://www.meca.gov.om (accessed on 7 January 2025).
- Saudi Aramco. Sulfur Byproduct Conversion: Transforming Waste into Fertilizers; Saudi Aramco Sustainability Report; 2023. Available online: https://www.saudiaramco.com (accessed on 7 January 2025).
- Abu Dhabi Waste Management Centre (ADSWMC). EcoWaste: AI-Powered Waste Management System for Abu Dhabi; Abu ADSWMC. 2022. Available online: https://www.adswmc.ae (accessed on 2 January 2025).
- Bahrain Petroleum Company (Bapco). Blockchain-Tracked Lubricants: Enhancing Supply Chain Transparency and Circularity; Bapco. 2023. Available online: https://www.bapco.net (accessed on 7 January 2025).
- Gulf Cooperation Council Secretariat General (GCC-SG). GCC Circular Economy Alliance Framework; GCC-SG: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Saudi Green Initiative (SGI). Saudi Green Initiative Roadmap: Embedding Circular Economy Principles for landfill Diversion and Climate Action; SGI. 2021. Available online: https://www.saudigreeninitiative.org (accessed on 2 January 2025).
- National Industrial Development and Logistics Program (NIDLP). Industrial Symbiosis and Circular Economy: Strategic Framework for Sustainable Growth; Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, NIDLP. 2022. Available online: https://www.nidlp.gov.sa (accessed on 2 January 2025).
- Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA). National Waste Management Enforcement Report; Saudi Government Publication, 2023.
- National Waste Management Center (MWAN). Centralizing Waste Management Policies: Strategic Plan for Material Recovery Facilities and Waste Streamlining; NWAN Publication. 2023. Available online: https://www.mwan.gov.sa (accessed on 2 January 2025).
- NEOM. Sustainability and Circular Economy Blueprint; NEOM. 2023. Available online: https://www.neom.com (accessed on 2 January 2025).
- NEOM. NEOM Sustainability Framework; NEOM Official Report; 2023.
- King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center (KAPSARC). Public perceptions of circular economy in Saudi Arabia; KAPSARC Publication, 2022.
- King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center (KAPSARC). Financing Circular Economies in the Gulf: Challenges in Mobilizing Private Capital; KAPSARC: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2022; Available online: https://www.kapsarc.org (accessed on 2 January 2025).
- Alraouf, A.A. Dubai’s Zero Waste to Landfill 2030 strategy: Governance gaps and the limits of policy transfer. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 75, 103301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN-Habitat. Circular Economy Transitions in the Global South: Workforce Challenges and Informal Sector Exclusion; United Nations Human Settlements Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2023; Available online: https://unhabitat.org (accessed on 12 February 2025).
- Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Circulytics: Measuring Stakeholder Inclusivity in Circular Economy Transitions; Ellen MacArthur Foundation: Wight, UK, 2019; Available online: https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org (accessed on 22 February 2025).
- Suárez-Eiroa, B.; Fernández, E.; Méndez-Martínez, G.; Soto-Oñate, D. Operational principles of circular economy for sustainable development: Linking theory and practice. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 214, 952–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murray, A.; Skene, K.; Haynes, K. The circular economy: An interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 140, 369–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schröder, P.; Almeida, S.; Bengtsson, M.; Singh, R. Just transitions in circular economies: A global South perspective. Ecological Economics 2020, 176, 106729. [Google Scholar]
- Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Economic Forum. The Social Dimension of Circular Economies: Leaving No One Behind; World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzerland, 2021; Available online: http://www.weforum.org/reports/social-dimension-circular-economy (accessed on 22 February 2025).
- DinarStandard. Islamic finance and sustainability: The rise of green sukuk. DinarStandard Report; 2023.
- Sgouridis, S.; et al. The role of green bonds in financing Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030. Energy Strategy Reviews 2023, 45, 101–112. [Google Scholar]
- Bulkeley, H.; McGuirk, P. M.; Dowling, R. Urban climate governance and green finance. Nature Sustainability. 2021, 4(12), 1001–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afripoli. Easing Africa’s Climate Crisis: Can Green Bonds Help Close the Climate Finance Gap? 2024. Available online: https://afripoli.org/easing-africas-climate-crisis-can-green-bonds-help-close-the-climate-finance-gap (accessed on 22 February 2025).
- Lehmann, S. The Principles of Green Urbanism: Transforming the City for Sustainability; Earthscan Publications: Oxford, MS, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Lieder, M.; Rashid, A. Towards circular economy implementation: A comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 115, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- A.K. Alhowaish, A.K. A.K. Alhowaish, A.K. Green Municipal Bonds and Sustainable Urbanism in Saudi Arabian Cities: Toward a Conceptual Framework. Sustainability, 2025; 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank. Green Bonds for Sustainable Cities; World Bank Climate Finance Report; 2023.
- UN-Habitat. Green finance for sustainable urbanization. United Nations Report, 2022.
- Alhowaish, A.K. Eighty years of urban growth and socioeconomic trends in Dammam Metropolitan Area, Saudi Arabia. Habitat Int. J. 2015, 50, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- General Authority for Statistics (GASTAT). Population and housing census 2021; GASTST Publication, 2021. Available online: https://www.stats.gov.sa (accessed on 22 February 2025).
- World Bank. GDP Per Capita (Current US$): Saudi Arabia; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; Available online: https://data.worldbank.org (accessed on 22 February 2025).
- Yin, R. K. Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE; 2018.
- Bryman, A. Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press; 2016.
- Cohen, J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1960, 20(1), 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creswell, J. W.; Poth, C. N. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE; 2018.
- Maxwell, J. A. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE; 2023.

| Variable | Category | Number (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Sector | Municipal Governance/Public Sector | 28 (12.2%) |
| Construction/Real Estate | 44 (19.1%) | |
| Oil and Gas | 56 (24.3%) | |
| Waste Management/Recycling | 33 (14.3%) | |
| Academia/Research | 50 (21.7%) | |
| NGO/Non-Profit | 19 (8.3%) | |
| Experience | Less than 5 years | 10 (4.3%) |
| 5–10 years | 126 (54.8%) | |
| 11–20 years | 79 (34.3%) | |
| More than 30 years | 15 (6.5%) | |
| Role | Policymaker/Regulator | 15 (6.5%) |
| Industry Manager/Executive | 35 (15.2%) | |
| Technical Expert/Engineer | 62 (27.0%) | |
| Academic Researcher | 83 (36.1%) | |
| Sustainability Consultant | 35 (15.2%) |
| Variable | Category | Number (%) | Mean (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preparedness for CE | Not Prepared | 22 (9.6%) | 2.64 (0.97) |
| Slightly Prepared | 88 (38.3%) | ||
| Moderately Prepared | 79 (34.3%) | ||
| Mostly Prepared | 34 (14.8%) | ||
| Fully Prepared | 7 (3.0%) | ||
| Waste Management Effectiveness | Very Ineffective | 6 (2.6%) | 2.95 (0.84) |
| Ineffective | 57 (24.8%) | ||
| Neutral | 115 (50.0%) | ||
| Effective | 44 (19.1%) | ||
| Very Effective | 8 (3.5%) | ||
| Recycling Rate | Less than 10% | 17 (7.4%) | 2.88 (1.09) |
| 10–20% | 62 (27.0%) | ||
| 21–30% | 92 (40.0%) | ||
| More than 30% | 33 (14.3%) | ||
| Don’t Know | 26 (11.3%) |
| 1. Sector Importance for CE Implementation (1 = Not Important, 5 = Extremely Important; n = 230) | |||||
| Sector | Mean (SD) | Frequency Distribution (%) | |||
| Renewable Energy | 4.10 (±0.65) | 1: 3%, 2: 7%, 3: 20%, 4: 50%, 5: 20% | |||
| Municipal Waste | 3.78 (±0.76) | 1: 5%, 2: 10%, 3: 25%, 4: 45%, 5: 15% | |||
| Water Management | 3.65 (±0.93) | 1: 8%, 2: 12%, 3: 30%, 4: 40%, 5: 10% | |||
| Construction | 3.45 (±0.89) | 1: 12%, 2: 18%, 3: 35%, 4: 28%, 5: 7% | |||
| Oil and Gas | 3.12 (±1.02) | 1: 15%, 2: 22%, 3: 30%, 4: 25%, 5: 8% | |||
| Statistical note: significant differences across sectors (F = 18.74, p = 0.001). | |||||
| 2. Impact of CE Strategies (1 = Highest Impact, 5 = Lowest Impact; n = 230) | |||||
| Strategy | Mean (SD) | Frequency Distribution (%) | |||
| Waste-to-Energy Plants | 3.80 (±0.85) | 1: 3%, 2: 10%, 3: 25%, 4: 45%, 5: 17% | |||
| Municipal Recycling | 3.55 (±0.95) | 1: 5%, 2: 15%, 3: 30%, 4: 35%, 5: 15% | |||
| Circular Construction | 3.40 (±0.98) | 1: 8%, 2: 20%, 3: 32%, 4: 30%, 5: 10% | |||
| Public Awareness Campaigns | 3.25 (±1.05) | 1: 12%, 2: 22%, 3: 30%, 4: 25%, 5: 11% | |||
| Industrial Symbiosis | 3.20 (±1.10) | 1: 10%, 2: 25%, 3: 35%, 4: 20%, 5: 10% | |||
| Statistical note: significant differences across strategies (F = 12.53, p = 0.001). | |||||
| 3. Sector-Strategy Associations (Chi-Square Results) | |||||
| Sector | Industrial Symbiosis | Municipal Recycling | Waste-to-Energy | Circular Construction | Public Awareness |
| Construction | 45.32* | 32.15 * | 68.40 *** | 18.90 | 14.25 |
| Oil and Gas | 24.50 * | 62.30 *** | 28.90 * | 12.80 | 9.45 |
| Municipal Waste | 85.60 *** | 58.75 *** | 38.20 ** | 22.10 | 15.30 |
| Renewable Energy | 40.25 *** | 55.20 *** | 33.90 ** | 15.80 | 21.10 |
| Water Management | 65.20 *** | 48.60 *** | 36.90 ** | 14.80 | 19.30 |
| 1. Significance of Barriers (1 = Not Significant, 5 = Extremely Significant; n = 230) | ||
| Barrier | Mean (SD) | Frequency Distribution (%) |
| Limited Public Awareness | 3.65 (±0.82) | 1: 3%, 2: 10%, 3: 30%, 4: 40%, 5: 17% |
| Lack of Funding | 3.52 (±0.89) | 1: 4%, 2: 15%, 3: 45%, 4: 25%, 5: 11% |
| Technical Capacity | 3.40 (±0.98) | 1: 8%, 2: 18%, 3: 35%, 4: 30%, 5: 9% |
| Regulatory Gaps | 3.28 (±0.95) | 1: 6%, 2: 20%, 3: 40%, 4: 25%, 5: 9% |
| Industry Resistance | 3.15 (±1.05) | 1: 10%, 2: 25%, 3: 35%, 4: 20%, 5: 10% |
| Statistical note: significant differences across barriers (F = 18.74, p = 0.001). | ||
| 2. Critical Institutional Barriers | ||
| Institutional Barrier | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
| Lack of Coordination Between Sectors | 78 | 33.91% |
| Short-Term Political Priorities | 65 | 28.26% |
| Fragmented Governance | 52 | 22.61% |
| Inadequate Monitoring Systems | 35 | 15.22% |
| 3. Key Chi-Square Associations | ||
| Association | Chi2 | p-Value |
| Lack of Funding vs. Fragmented Governance | 23.45 | 0.010 * |
| Technical Capacity vs. Inadequate Monitoring | 18.75 | 0.015 * |
| Public Awareness vs. Lack of Coordination | 22.30 | 0.008 * |
| 1. Prioritized Policy Measures (Respondents selected up to 3 measures; n = 230) | |||
| Policy Measure | Frequency | Percentage (%) | |
| Stricter Waste Management Regulations | 92 | 40.00% | |
| CE Training Programs for Municipal Staff | 84 | 36.52% | |
| Tax Incentives for Circular Businesses | 78 | 33.91% | |
| Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) | 65 | 28.26% | |
| Subsidies for Recycling Infrastructure | 59 | 25.65% | |
| Other | 12 | 5.22% | |
| 2. Likelihood of Achieving 60% Waste Diversion by 2030 (1 = Very Unlikely, 5 = Very Likely; n = 230) | |||
| Likelihood Level | Frequency | Percentage (%) | |
| Very Unlikely | 18 | 7.83% | |
| Unlikely | 34 | 14.78% | |
| Neutral | 72 | 31.30% | |
| Likely | 85 | 36.96% | |
| Very Likely | 21 | 9.13% | |
| Mean (SD) | 3.45 (±1.12) | ||
| 3. Key Statistical Associations | |||
| Policy Measure | Chi-Square | p-Value | Insight |
| Tax Incentives | 27.35 | 0.006 * | Linked to higher optimism |
| CE Training Programs | 19.80 | 0.020 * | Strong alignment with positive views |
| Public–Private Partnerships | 12.45 | 0.150 | No significant association |
| 1. Achievable Municipal Recycling Rate by 2030 (n = 230) | ||
| Recycling Rate Category | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
| 0–20% | 22 | 9.57% |
| 21–40% | 112 | 48.70% |
| 41–60% | 68 | 29.57% |
| More than 60% | 28 | 12.17% |
| 2. Likelihood of the DMA Becoming a Regional CE Leader (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree; n = 230) | ||
| Agreement Level | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
| Strongly Disagree | 6 | 2.61% |
| Disagree | 24 | 10.43% |
| Neutral | 65 | 28.26% |
| Agree | 105 | 45.65% |
| Strongly Agree | 30 | 13.04% |
| Mean (SD) | 3.72 (±0.89) | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).