Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

New Towns: Initial Physical Models, Their Evolution and Future Recommendations

Land 2025, 14(9), 1855; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091855

by Hadas Shadar

Reviewer 1:

Christian Luiz Da Silva

Reviewer 2:

Konstantinos Lalenis

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Land 2025, 14(9), 1855; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091855

Submission received: 2 August 2025 / Revised: 8 September 2025 / Accepted: 9 September 2025 / Published: 11 September 2025

(This article belongs to the Section Land Planning and Landscape Architecture)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a pertinent topic for the journal. Despite the generic title, the study is limited to analyzing models from Israel. While this is presented as relevant, it is a limitation and should be addressed as such in both the title and abstract. The introduction should further explore why Israel is a model worthy of study and justify the models and periods analyzed. These choices should be based on other authors. Figures 6 to 13 should be further explained and detailed. Although new models are mentioned, there are few references from the last five years. We suggest expanding this theoretical discussion, including articles published in Land.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

I thank the reviewer for these valuable comments, which have helped me enrich the article. Below are my detailed responses together with the revisions made. The answers are presented in the order of the reviewer’s remarks.

The title and abstract have been revised to make it clear that the article focuses on urban models.
Israel serves only as a case study, as now elaborated in the significantly expanded methodology section (see lines 178-–205, added to the manuscript).
The introduction explains that since the 1980s, West-European countries ceased to view new towns as a viable solution. Therefore, the guiding question of the article is what can nevertheless be learned from new towns whose values are derived from Western traditions. As Israeli planners drew heavily on these, the models of Israeli new towns serve here as a case study (see lines 153–205).
The periods chosen for analysis—the 1990s and 2010—were selected because they follow the 1980s (when no new towns were built in the West. The rationale is supported by other authors, cited in the introduction, especially references 11 and 14) and because they represent the development of new models, conceived as lessons drawn from earlier ones. This point has now been clarified in the opening of the Results section (see lines 232-234).
Legends have now been added to Figures 6–13, thereby improving their readability. The resolution of all figures is maximal and meets printing requirements.
Note that, as stated in the introduction, no new physical models have emerged in the West, but only new values. Nonetheless, all sources (except historical ones) are from recent years. In response to the reviewer’s request, updated and relevant articles from Land have now been added (see reference 61-65).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides a detailed overview of the Israeli New Towns, tracing the evolution of their physical models and the ideologies that allegedly shaped them. The focus on four cases (Be'er Sheva, Karmiel, Modi'in, Harish) is valuable and the descriptive analysis of the models (flower, grid, linear, composite) is clear and well-documented. However, in its current form, it does not adequately address the ideological dimensions suggested by the title. Some parts become excessively descriptive of physical layouts without being connected to the central question of "ideology". The conclusions emphasize flexibility and ecological design, but the recommendations could be strengthened by linking them to governance and participation. A greater analytical balance is recommended. I would suggest major revisions to expand the scope of "ideologies" to include public participation, social and cultural diversity, land occupation related conflicts and the political choices that govern planning decisions.

Comments on specific issues:

The title promises an analysis of "ideologies", but the analysis is largely limited to design functions (commerce, mobility, environmental factors, community cohesion). The ideological dimension is limited to shifts from communality to individualism or from socialism to neoliberalism. Broader and more critical ideological dimensions – ethnic/ religious segregation, territorial control, exclusionary policies – are absent. Without them, the paper risks presenting spatial planning as politically neutral, when, in fact, it was deeply affected by ideological struggles.

The article does not deal with public participation or its absence. This is a significant omission, as one of the main reasons for the limited success of the new towns (in Israel and elsewhere) has been the top-down character of their planning. Participatory planning, stakeholder engagement and co-creation are now widely recognized as key components of successful urban development. Excluding them from the analysis weakens the explanatory power of the study.

While the article convincingly shows the dominance of British planning during the Mandate and the first decades of Israeli statehood, it overlooks Mediterranean planning traditions (Spain, Italy, France, Greece, Croatia). These countries, which share climate and lifestyle patterns closer to Israel, could have provided more relevant planning references. If Israeli urban planners consciously ignored them, this choice in itself reflects an ideological stance and should be addressed.

The study treats new cities as abstract models, largely detached from their geography and politics. Key issues omitted include: the displacement of Bedouin landowners in the Negev, the political-ideological dimension of new settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, and broader conflicts over rights on land. These cases are crucial if the article aims to examine ideologies. Their absence significantly limits the analysis.

The article does not acknowledge that the new Israeli towns were designed primarily for Jewish populations. This raises important ideological and political questions: Was homogeneity a guiding principle? Have Arab citizens been taken into account and their cultural or religious needs incorporated? The hypothesis of social homogeneity is in itself ideological and deserves discussion.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

I would like to thank the reviewer for the comments, which helped me focus the article. My responses and the details of the revisions I have made are presented below.

The aim of the article was to examine the initial models of new towns, to analyze their development, and to consider the implications that arise from them. Israel was selected solely as a case study (an example from which lessons can be drawn) for the reasons stated in the article: its reliance on Western planning traditions and the fact that it is a country engaged in building new towns. Israel is therefore presented only as an example and not as the subject of the article.

Following this comment and the subsequent ones, I understood the need to revise the title so that it explicitly emphasizes the article’s focus on the models, and to reduce the discussion of ideologies. Furthermore, I clarified the distinction between Israel as a case study and Israel as the central subject of inquiry. These clarifications are detailed in lines 178–205.

Here are the new and the abstract:

Title :New Towns: Initial Physical Models, their Evolution and Future Recommendations

Abstract: This article examines the initial physical models of new towns. Its aim is to identify physical models for new towns that articulate Western planning concepts, to understand the transformations in the models and their causes, and trace their development and future trajectory. Israel’s new towns have been selected as a case study for two main reasons: Israel continues to plan and construct new towns, and in doing so, draws on Western planning models and values. An examination of these models, and their transformations over time reveals that since the 1960s, two key motifs can be discerned: the grid model and the linear model. The study found that similar models may in fact reflect contradictory approaches to communality and individualism, coercion and free choice, although the general trend is one of transition from communality toward individualism. It was also found that the more rigid the plan—and thus perceived by planners as “more correct”—the more it fails, as the future is inherently unpredictable. Based on an analysis of these plans and the gaps between them and the facts on the ground, the article concludes by providing physical recommendations for the planning of new towns.

Comments on specific issues:

I wish to thank the reviewer for this important comment. Following this observation, the title of the article has been revised, and the term 'ideology' has been removed both from the title and from the text. I wish to emphasize that the article deals with models of new towns. These models focus on the organization of urban functions and, sometimes implicitly, also express the relationships between people as envisioned by the planners. Such relationships may range from communality (sometimes imposed) to individualism and personal freedom of choice. These points are articulated in the article.

The location of a new town (as part of broader regional or national spatial planning) does not form part of this study. Location may be intended to disperse the population but at times also to consolidate territorial control. States may employ any given model and situate the new town in different regions according to diverse purposes. Since this article is concerned only with the models and treats Israel as a case study, it does not address the geopolitical considerations of Israeli planners and politicians. A clarification to this effect has been added in lines 178-189.

"At this point, several qualifications are in order. First, this article focuses on the physical models of the new towns. By their very nature, models are abstract constructs that articulate a very general idea. Their implementation, however, confronts them with the specific conditions of the physical site and with the concrete contents of place. To maintain the article’s focus on models, it does not address variables specific to Israel and its geopolitical circumstances, such as the siting of towns within the territory or their designation mostly for the Jewish population, which constitutes 80% of the residents within the boundaries subject to Israeli law. It also does not address the Jewish settlements in the territories occupied in 1967: in most of these areas, Israeli law does not apply, and in any case, these territories include only two new towns with populations over 30,000. One was planned before the 1980s, while the other was not originally planned as a town, but rather as a suburb."

I wish to emphasize that the article focuses on models of new towns at the stage prior to their construction, before any population actually resides in them. As these models are preliminary and highly abstract, and since no population lives in the towns as yet, public participation cannot take place. This has not been the practice in any country, as indicated in reference 29. These clarifications have been incorporated into the text in lines 235–238.

"Second, no public participation took place in the planning processes of the new towns, just as there was no public participation in similar new towns elsewhere in the West. This stems from the fact that the initial models were too abstract, and the fact that the towns were planned for populations that had not yet arrived [29]. "

Indeed, the Mediterranean or Middle Eastern context did not serve as a reference model at the relatively abstract and urban scale of the new town models in Israel. The reason for this is historical: the Israeli hegemony was composed of European immigrants who perceived the country as an extension of Europe. This has been clarified in the text and supported by a dedicated source (32); see lines 198-205. At the same time, I wish to reiterate that the article does not deal with Israel or with the development of its hegemony, but rather with the models of new towns. Israel is employed solely as a case study.

"Fourth, despite Israel’s Mediterranean location, the planning of the new towns did not draw on local traditions better suited to climate conditions, for example. Rather, it positioned Israel as an extension of Western Europe, certainly when it came to the models of new towns. This orientation was a result of the European origins of the Jewish planners, who constituted part of the Israeli elite and consolidated the local hegemonic mindset. Relatedly, the only school of architecture in Israel before 1992 was also dominated by the Eurocentric approach of its founders and leaders [32]. As previously discussed, this orientation was informed in part from the example provided by British planning."

The article does not deal with the ideology behind the location of the Israeli new towns, and following this and similar comments, the term 'ideology' has indeed been removed from the text. The article’s focus is on the models of new towns, which, as noted, may be located anywhere according to the planning strategies and territorial or demographic objectives of different regimes in different contexts. At the same time, the towns mentioned in the article and whose models are analyzed are all located within the 1948 borders of Israel, not in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. Within these borders, Israeli law applies, and 80% of the citizens are Jewish. This clarification can be found in lines 181-189.

"To maintain the article’s focus on models, it does not address variables specific to Israel and its geopolitical circumstances, such as the siting of towns within the territory or their designation mostly for the Jewish population, which constitutes 80% of the residents within the boundaries subject to Israeli law. It also does not address the Jewish settlements in the territories occupied in 1967: in most of these areas, Israeli law does not apply, and in any case, these territories include only two new towns with populations over 30,000. One was planned before the 1980s, while the other was not originally planned as a town, but rather as a suburb."

In light of this comment, it is now explicitly stated that the new towns were intended primarily for Jews. As I have previously noted, and as clarified in the text, Jews constitute 80% of the population within the 1948 borders, where the new towns discussed in the article are located. At the same time, it should be emphasized that any citizen is legally entitled to reside in them, and indeed, many Arabs have chosen to live in Be’er Sheva, Karmiel and Harish.

More detailed consideration of cultural aspects of the population is rarely reflected at the scale of the initial physical models of the new towns. (The issues of walkability and communality were in fact highlighted in the article as reflecting the behavior of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish population in relation to Harish; see lines 398-403). At the same time, examples can indeed be found of urban fabrics planned in new towns and of residential construction designed for populations other than the mainstream culture, including the Arab population. These points now appear in the text in lines 194-197, supported by two references (30–31) for readers who wish to explore this further.

"Third, urban models are not sensitive to the residents’ culture, since they are highly general and the future inhabitants are not yet known. At more detailed scales, and in plans specifically intended for populations whose culture is known, cultural adaptation can be observed in the fabrics and buildings of new towns [30-31]."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

GENERAL COMMENTS

Although the manuscript is interesting and has great potential, it requires significant reworking to improve its logic, coherence, and flow. Overall, the authors are advised to reference consistently, avoid statements like ‘According to researchers…’ (Line 108), and accordingly make the writing less casual.

TITLE, INTRODUCTION AND FRAMING

The authors should consider updating the title to encapsulate the focus of the manuscript adequately.

The abstract does not cover all the requisite components, and the authors surprisingly started the abstract with the aim of the article.

It would be helpful for the authors to explicitly describe 'new towns’ in the introduction. Surely, there is no one agreed-upon definition, hence the authors must state their interpretation from the onset.

Most statements in the introduction are not referenced, making the arguments appear to be opinions. A good example is the first two sentences of the manuscript (lines 23 to 28).

The use of ‘current’ in the introduction can be confusing. For instance, a mention of ‘… with a current population of 30 000’ (line 25) can be interpreted as ‘current’ at the time of drafting the manuscript.

The authors tend to loosely mention arguments and concepts without defining and linking them to the narrative. For instance, there is a mention of 'a centralized and interventionist approach to territorial development' (line 30) while the previous sentence mentions ‘… designed to decentralize the population…’ [my emphasis].

The definition of Garden City (lines 36 to 37) does not do justice to the model. Authors are urged to improve the definition for the readers to visualise the Garden City model.

It is unclear what the authors mean by ‘abstract' values (line 93) that replaced the total concrete physical model.

In line 95, the authors mention the ‘ecological city’, followed by ‘healthy cities’ and so on. However, not necessarily incorrect, it is unclear why these ideas are emphasised while there are other related models like the sponge city. The authors should convincingly justify their arguments.

The research problem, which I believe represents the heart of the manuscript, requires improvement and refinement. For instance, in line 56, the meaning of '... new towns failed to reach their target populations.' is unclear. Reach in what sense? Similarly, in Line 58, it is unclear why the authors emphasize the quality of life during the construction phase. It would be logical to assess the quality of life post the construction.

The last paragraph of the introduction should present the structure of the manuscript.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The authors should consider having a dedicated literature review section after the introduction.

RESEARCH METHODS

It is noted in line 126 that ‘The first method involved selecting Israel as a case study’. It is unclear what method the authors are referring to. Rephrasing that sentence would improve clarity about the research methods used. Nonetheless, the rationale for selecting Israel as a case study is presented sufficiently.

In Line 153, the authors mention interviews in the discussion of a systematic literature review approach. The interviews should be given sufficient attention and presented separately.

The ‘third method’ (from Line 159) must be clarified. How were the urban plans analysed?

To further clarify Section 2, the authors must present 'data collection methods' and 'data analysis methods' in different but related sub-sections, rather than conflating the two.

The last paragraph of Section 2 must be integrated into the presentation of the manuscript’s structure in the Introduction.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To improve the logic of the results, the authors should consider having the sub-sections around the research questions that the paper attempted to answer, and make them traceable to the research methods used.

The authors must discuss the results in relation to the literature on the topic. It is noted that there is no single citation in Section 4, which makes the presentation read like a summary, rather than a discussion proper.

FIGURES

Ideally, all figures must have a legend, instead of relying on the statement 'Legend for all diagrams...' in Line 377.

The authors are encouraged not to use the word 'current' and instead indicate the specific year.

CONCLUSION

The authors are encouraged to strengthen the conclusion and address the ‘so what’ question. For instance, the recommendation to plan a new town as a green city sounds too elementary.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

I would like to thank the reviewer for these comments, which helped me to focus the article. Below each section, I provide a detailed response.

GENERAL COMMENTS

As can be seen from my detailed responses, I have addressed each comment and revised the text accordingly.

With regard to the sentence mentioned in the comment, it has been clarified now. that Please see line 119: " According to researchers [17, 23-24]…".

TITLE, INTRODUCTION AND FRAMING

The authors should consider updating the title to encapsulate the focus of the manuscript adequately.

The title has been revised and now refers to the models and their transformations, and to future recommendations.

The abstract does not cover all the requisite components, and the authors surprisingly started the abstract with the aim of the article.

The opening sentence has been revised and now explicitly states the subject of the article: the physical models of new towns.

The definition of new towns now appears at the beginning of the Introduction; see lines 25-28: " A new town is defined as a town initiated and planned by the state or by experts on its behalf. The new town is intended to encompass a comprehensive array of activities, enabling much of daily life to take place within it. [1] Nevertheless, it is born out of a schematic model, which is the focus of this article."

Most statements in the introduction are not referenced, making the arguments appear to be opinions. A good example is the first two sentences of the manuscript (lines 23 to 28).

All the information in these lines is indeed based on the source cited later [1]. This is a significant source that recurs throughout the article.

The terminology has been revised throughout the article, and it now includes precise temporal indications.

I wish to clarify that the contrasts between concentration and dispersal refer to two different aspects. Concentration relates to the planning method (centralized under state control), whereas dispersal refers to the planning objective (the redistribution of the population). In order to achieve such dispersal, centralized state planning is required, including the subsequent construction of the new towns.

The definition of Garden City (lines 36 to 37) does not do justice to the model. Authors are urged to improve the definition for the readers to visualise the Garden City model.

An expanded explanation of the Garden City concept has been added, and it now appears in lines 41-45. "The Garden City was designed to provide a high quality of life based on a low-rise, green-rich village, combined with diverse services and employment opportunities, as befits a self-sustained town. This model endowed the new towns with zoning, restriction of the target population (in the case of the Garden City, specifically defined as 30,000 inhabitants) and, in particular, with low density and proximity to nature [4]."

It is unclear what the authors mean by ‘abstract' values (line 93) that replaced the total concrete physical model.

I wish to clarify that the discussion there does not dwell on any specific physical model such as those presented in the article (the flower model, the linear model, the grid model, etc.), but rather on characteristics that may be applied across different physical models. Immediately following this sentence, the text specifies which characteristics are being addressed.

I wish to clarify that the Sponge City is part of the broader ecological worldview and was therefore not mentioned specifically. The characteristics of beneficial urbanism cited in the article were explicitly referenced from a comprehensive volume on new towns, as can be seen from the sources cited in the text.

Since the construction of a new town extends over several decades, it is important to ensure quality of life even before the town reaches its target population. Poor quality of life in a new town poses a serious risk of residents leaving, preventing the town from developing. In response to this comment, these points are now clarified in lines 64-69. "However, planning is one thing, and reality another. A new town is planned in the present for a target population, and its construction unfolds over several decades. To ensure that the population continues to grow, and to prevent outmigration during the process—which may ultimately lead to the decline of the new town—it is crucial to maintain a high quality of life throughout the stages of construction. It appears that some of the new towns failed to reach their target populations."

The last paragraph of the introduction should present the structure of the manuscript.

The text has been revised accordingly, as can be seen in lines 136-151.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The authors should consider having a dedicated literature review section after the introduction.

I would like to clarify that in accordance with the journal’s requirements, the literature review is included within the Introduction section.

RESEARCH METHODS

To clarify this point, the text now reads as follows: “The first [method] involved selecting a representative case study. The state of Israel was chosen…” (lines 153-154)

In Line 153, the authors mention interviews in the discussion of a systematic literature review approach. The interviews should be given sufficient attention and presented separately.

The interviews are now presented separately; see lines 208-211. "The third method included interviews with professionals who worked on the plans for the new towns or guided their planning process on behalf of the Israeli Ministry of Construction and Housing. This analysis identified the theories and precedents informing this planning and their results on the ground."

The ‘third method’ (from Line 159) must be clarified. How were the urban plans analysed?

I wish to clarify that the analysis is presented immediately following the sentence, and it refers to the breakdown of the physical model into its components: "residential areas, community and urban centers, green spaces, and the mobility network" see lines 213-214.

To further clarify Section 2, the authors must present 'data collection methods' and 'data analysis methods' in different but related sub-sections, rather than conflating the two.

There is currently a separation between the data collection and analysis; see lines 221-227. "The content analysis of the literature review and interview findings addressed the reasoning underlying the specific planning decisions: the choice to adopt European models, the drawing of lessons from earlier models, and the values that planners sought to embed through these models regarding the balancing of communality and individualism. The analysis of the plans and of the situation on the ground employed paired schematic graphic schemes—of the original plans and of the situation in 2025—in order to identify the differences between the initial models and their subsequent evolution."

The last paragraph of Section 2 must be integrated into the presentation of the manuscript’s structure in the Introduction.

This paragraph has been moved to the end of the Introduction.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

I have revised the opening of the Results section so that it explicitly outlines the scope of the chapter as a response to the research questions, which are reiterated at this point. See lines 299-234. "The results section is structured as follows. The first three subsections proceed chronologically, reviewing the models prior to the 1980s (3.1); the model of the 1990s (3.2); and the model of the 2010s (3.3). The final subsection (3.4) examines the changes between the initial models and reality. The years selected for in-depth analysis—the 1990s and 2010—were chosen because they represent the post-1980s period, in which two new towns were planned, which reflect a significant evolution in planning thought."

In response to this comment, an introductory paragraph has been added to the Discussion section, referring to the literature review, to selected sources, and to the question arising from the literature that is addressed in the Discussion. See Lines 526-534. "The literature review indicates that Western Europe no longer develops models for new towns, as it has become clear that cities are too complex to predict their future development [2, 14-16], and that pre-modernist cities are superior to the planned new towns that followed [11-13]. It has also been understood that, instead of physical models for new towns, since the 1990s recommendations have been advanced for improved planning [17, 23-24] based on values such as communality, ecology [20], and health [21-22]. Nevertheless, since new towns are still being planned with reference to these same Western values, as demonstrated in the present findings, the question arises as to what can be learned from them."

FIGURES

Ideally, all figures must have a legend, instead of relying on the statement 'Legend for all diagrams...' in Line 377.

This has been corrected: all figures now include a legend.

The authors are encouraged not to use the word 'current' and instead indicate the specific year.

A concrete timeframe is provided instead of the term previously used throughout the article

CONCLUSION

The authors are encouraged to strengthen the conclusion and address the ‘so what’ question. For instance, the recommendation to plan a new town as a green city sounds too elementary.

In light of this comment, the explanations regarding the necessity of residential plots rich in greenery at the initial stage of the town, and their relation to planning flexibility, have been strengthened. Please see lines 637-642. "Green spaces within the residential plots provided flexibility with regard to building density. In the initial stage of the town, when the population was still small, the buildings were modest in scale and embedded in greenery. Over time, in response to market forces and ecological values, multi-story buildings replaced the original houses, at the expense of the open and green spaces within the residential plots."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that the author managed to meet the request as far as possible.

Author Response

Thanks for your review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version presents a clearer and more coherent paper. By limiting the scope to the physical models of New Towns, the title now matches the content, and the contribution is more focused. The typological analysis of the four Israeli cases (flower, grid, linear, composite) is well documented and provides useful insights into the evolution of planning thought.

That said, I would stress that physical models alone cannot provide a complete understanding of New Towns. While the decision to omit “ideology” and restrict the analysis is legitimate within the chosen framework, it also narrows the explanatory power of the paper. New Towns are never simply abstract forms: their functioning and long-term adequacy are shaped by context — above all, location, governance, and social composition. For instance, the same grid or linear model may perform very differently depending on where it is situated, which populations it serves, and under what political or economic conditions it is implemented.

Consequently, I find that the paper in its revised form is now consistent and acceptable as a study of physical models. However, I would encourage the author to acknowledge more explicitly the limits of this approach — that physical models, when detached from questions of location, participation, and socio-political context, offer only a partial aspect on the phenomenon of New Towns.

I recommend acceptance of the article subject to a minor clarification. In particular, the introduction or conclusion could briefly note that:

physical models are abstract constructs,
their success or failure is always mediated by contextual factors such as location, governance, and social composition, and
the present paper deliberately restricts itself to the formal/typological dimension, leaving broader contextual analysis for future work.

This addition would make clear to the reader that the narrower scope is intentional, and not an oversight.

Author Response

Thanks for your review, please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors. Thank you for addressing my comments.

However, I am still concerned about the referencing style, specifically where a citation is placed at the end of a long paragraph that includes various sentences (e.g. lines 29-36). In such cases, I would advise that the citation be provided both at the beginning of the paragraph (e.g. According to.....) and at the end [1]. It would then be clear that the same reference covers the sentences in between.

The presentation of some elements of the methods is not comprehensive. For instance, it is unclear how and when the interviews with professionals were conducted (Line 208).

Author Response

Thanks for your review, please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Article Menu

New Towns: Initial Physical Models, Their Evolution and Future Recommendations

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI