Introduction
Cities can be both dense and green, but achieving this depends strongly on how and where urbanization occurs. Debates around how to achieve urbanization that reduces impacts on biodiversity often center on the strategies of land sparing or land sharing (). Land sparing concentrates development to preserve large green areas for biodiversity elsewhere, whereas land sharing distributes greenery to support biodiversity throughout the urban fabric. In practice, urban regions often implement hybrid configurations in which compact development at the metropolitan scale is combined with distributed vegetation at neighborhood and parcel scales, mediated by diverse public and private ownership arrangements (e.g., street trees, pocket parks, communal courtyards and private gardens) (). Land sparing is an important consideration at the point of planning new cities or as cities expand. However, within the city, land sharing is imperative regardless of the density of the built form (); particularly when the vision is for dense, green and biodiverse cities. These approaches are not neutral with respect to management: decisions about irrigation, pruning, pesticide use and access all interact with spatial configuration to shape biodiversity outcomes and ecosystem service delivery in dense urban contexts.
In this opinion, we argue, drawing exclusively on published evidence and conceptual advances rather than new empirical data that dense cities can be green and biodiverse by prioritizing two key strategies: multilayer vegetation and biodiversity considerations including a “Some Large and Many Small” (SLAMS) approach to ground level green spaces. We begin by illustrating how multi-layered vegetation can be achieved in both vertical and ground level contexts. We then share how small adjustments can provide additional benefits for biodiversity in urban areas, to create dense cities that are not only green, but biodiverse.
Globally, Urbanization has produced two broad patterns of density. Some cities were conceived as dense from the outset such as in regions in China, with compact layouts and high-rise forms (). Others have become dense incrementally through redevelopment, infill, and vertical expansion (). In both patterns, further densification reduces space for green infrastructure and intensifies trade-offs between low-carbon living, housing development, ecology, and wellbeing.
Vertical green infrastructure
When horizontal space is scarce, cities can grow upwards by greening buildings (Figure 1). Vertical forests and living walls turn building facades into habitat. The Bosco Verticale towers in Milan, for example, host 21,000 plants on two towers, equivalent in leaf area to several hectares of parkland. These trees and shrubs lower internal temperatures by up to 3 °C during the summer, which decreases energy demand for cooling by approximately 7.5 % and sequester carbon, making the towers: machines of ecological production (). In Singapore, the Oasia Hotel Downtown's green facade includes 21 species of climbing plants and 33 tree species (54 plant species total), which have attracted birds and bees and support nearly half the bird species diversity of the surrounding district (). These examples show that vegetation on buildings can create novel Urban habitats. Vertical green systems also filter air and improve microclimates (); leaves capture fine particulates and gaseous pollutants through stomatal absorption (). Over a decade, data from vertical forest buildings worldwide show tangible benefits for energy use, air quality, and biodiversity. However, caution is warranted: skyscraper greenery can be resource intensive. Cantilevered planters and deep soil volumes require extra concrete support. For example, Bosco Verticale's structural terraces required significant reinforcing, increasing embodied carbon relative to a plain high-rise (). Such systems can rely on potable water, undermining the long-term sustainability and equity of vertical greening in water-limited cities, unless coupled with water management strategies such as decentralized greywater treatment and reuse (). Alternative water sources such as gray water can be used with substrates that do not accumulate salts (porous rock materials with low organic matter) but this has not yet been used at scale (). Emerging work on urban greening and water strategies in Australian cities demonstrates the technical viability of combining green infrastructure with integrated water management to adapt to climate change and urban growth, even though implementation remains uneven (). While design innovations are emerging, these systems still require careful consideration.
Figure 1
Multi-layered green infrastructure at ground level
Beyond vertical facades, multi-layered urban forests at ground level could enhance ecosystem service delivery and biodiversity habitat support [e.g., , Figure 1]. By moving beyond single trees or simple groundcovers and instead including multiple layers as observed in natural forest systems, i.e., with canopy, sub-canopy, shrub, herbaceous/grass cover and groundcover layers, cooling effects will be increased () due to greater sun interception and evapotranspiraton. Importantly, canopy architecture matters, medium height street trees (5–15 m tall) with dense crowns often cool pedestrians more than very tall trees, because their low, spreading canopies provide immediate shade at human scale (). In one analysis, each 1% increase in local tree cover reduced mean thermal stress in terms of physiological equivalent temperature (PET) by approximately 0.17 °C (). Higher leaf area achieved through multi-layered planting will also increase transpiration and canopy interception of rainfall, thereby reducing the volumes of stormwater runoff generated. In addition, greater leaf area and diversity of leaf traits will increase interception of particulate pollutants. These physical functions translate into enhanced aesthetics and social wellbeing: multi-layered, structurally complex vegetation is often perceived as more natural, immersive and restorative than sparse tree and lawn typologies () and is associated with psychological and physiological benefits such as reduced stress, improved mood and more comfortable microclimates for social interaction. An example of multi-layered plantings is Woody Meadows which have been successfully installed across Australian cities to improve urban green. Importantly, vegetation structure also shapes biodiversity outcomes. Structurally complex, multi-layered systems can support a broader range of niches, particularly when aligned with a “Some Large and Many Small” (SLAMS) approach. Here, we use SLAMS as an explicitly urban adaptation of the long-standing Single Large or Several Small (SLOSS) debate from conservation biology (). In highly modified cityscapes, we argue that conserving some larger, high-quality remnant patches while simultaneously creating and managing many small, structurally complex green spaces (e.g., street verges, pocket parks, courtyard woodlands and vegetated laneways) can better support biodiversity and ecosystem services than a focus on either large or small sites alone.
The diagram depicts interactions across three spatial scales: (1) subterranean processes supporting soil health, carbon storage, and hydrological regulation; (2) neighborhood-scale green infrastructure that enhances thermal comfort, biodiversity connectivity, and human wellbeing; and (3) building-scale vertical greening that contributes to climate regulation, air quality improvement, and habitat provision. Regional land-sparing is shown in parallel with local land-sharing, highlighting how compact urban form can coexist with ecological function when nature is integrated as essential infrastructure rather than residual space. The figure is illustrative and does not represent a specific site or empirical dataset.
In a land-sharing paradigm, green is not confined to parks but extends across public and private spaces. Vegetation can be deployed on buildings and at ground level across many urban settings, including streets, rooftops, courtyards, and small patches. While such systems enhance ecosystem services, current greening practices tend to support more ubiquitous or cosmopolitan urban species, while remnant green space habitats support more unique biodiversity, such as rare and threatened species (), or site specialists (). These latter groups of species typically have very specific habitat needs that are not met by simply greening. Therefore, when discussing greening to support biodiversity in cities, we must distinguish between remnant green spaces and designed green spaces as they will support different assemblages of species in the absence of intentional efforts to counter this.
Historically, the Single Large or Several Small (SLOSS) concept () has dominated approaches to conservation. However, in cities, there is abundant evidence that a more effective approach to supporting local biodiversity is by adapting this to a “Some Large and Many Small” (SLAMS) approach. For example, empirical studies have shown that small, well-managed urban patches, including biodiverse streetscapes and pocket parks, can host substantial pollinator, bird and invertebrate diversity and contribute to functional connectivity between larger remnants in fragmented urban landscapes (e.g., ; ). This approach ensures larger patches of remnant vegetation remain available for area-sensitive species; but recognizes that in a highly altered landscape, small patches play a greater role than their size would suggest, particularly when supported by management activities. Within a SLAMS framework, management quality becomes as important as spatial configuration: without biodiversity-sensitive practices, small green elements risk becoming ecological traps or purely aesthetic features rather than contributing meaningfully to urban ecological function. Real-world examples include woody meadow plantings installed across Australian cities, which combine multi-layered structure with small spatial footprints (), as well as biodiversity-sensitive urban design projects that incorporate networks of small green spaces into higher-density precincts (; ).
To sustain high-quality benefits across both large and small spaces, greater effort is needed to design, incorporate and maintain multi-layered vegetation systems, using strategies such as those outlined above. While most urban green spaces are still dominated by single-layer (turfgrass or shrubs) or dual-layer (trees over grass) plantings, there is enormous potential to broaden the biodiversity that can persist in cities through intentional approaches such as biodiversity-positive design (), biodiversity-sensitive urban design () and supporting actions ().
The challenges of creating multi-layered urban forests
Despite the demonstrated ecological and functional benefits of multi-layered vegetation, several practical constraints influence their implementation in dense urban environments. These constraints are not purely biophysical. Land tenure, governance arrangements and institutional responsibilities strongly determine where multi-layered systems can be implemented, who pays for their establishment and maintenance, and how benefits and disservices are distributed across communities. Recent work on urban greening governance highlights the importance of coordinating public and private actors to secure continuous, connected habitat and equitable ecosystem service provision in dense neighborhoods, using tools such as green replacement requirements in private developments, biodiversity-sensitive design standards, and tax incentives or subsidies that encourage landowners to retrofit multi-layered vegetation where on-site provision is feasible (; ). In dense urban areas, plantings at ground level are typically simple: single trees are fitted in around footpaths and roads, and any planted areas are dominated by a single species.
Pedestrian and traffic access are prioritized, resulting in limited space for vegetation at ground level. Sight lines are particularly important for the safety of pedestrians and road users which is why we typically see planter bed vegetation limited to < 0.5 m in height and tree crowns lifted to above 2 m. At the same time, prevailing “clean and tidy” aesthetic norms often equate well-managed parks with short, uniform lawns and neatly clipped shrubs, reinforcing frequent mowing, removal of spontaneous vegetation and heavy pruning. Together, these safety and aesthetic expectations bias management toward simplified, low-structure plantings and can erode the slightly “messier” multi-layered systems that are most beneficial for biodiversity and urban ecological function (). However, planting layouts can be designed to preserve sight lines and access in zones requiring greater visibility through punctuated use of taller species that open or narrow canopies along footpaths and wider multilayered compositions in pockets, laneways, parking bays and parks, with as little as 30% vertical cover sufficient to maximize biodiversity responses across multiple taxa ().
Increasing vegetation complexity through multi-layered plantings requires greater resources, that is, more leaf area requires higher water and nutrient input and therefore soil volume. However, this relationship is context dependent. Evidence from woody meadows indicates improved moisture retention, nutrient cycling, and lower maintenance once established. Increasing accessible soil volume can be achieved through use of engineered systems, e.g., structural cells beneath pavements (). In higher-resource contexts these systems can be combined with permeable surfaces which preserve trafficability but facilitate infiltration of runoff (). In many low-resource municipalities, particularly in parts of the Global South, adapting SLAMS principles may instead rely on recognizing, protecting and selectively managing spontaneous or “informal” vegetation in vacant lots, verges and roofs as low-cost small patches that contribute to stormwater mitigation, habitat and soil-function benefits when tolerated, rather than eliminated [e.g. ].
Plantings are typically simplistic as municipalities tend to favor using contractors to perform repeatable tasks such (mowing, clipping and litter removal) which do not require more specialized skills (plant selection, succession planting and pruning). Increasing the complexity of vegetation could require specialized skills but this can also be overcome with appropriate species selection, grouping plants by establishment and maintenance needs and specifying maintenance regimes which can adapt and respond to evolution of plantings ().
Despite these challenges, we suggest it is possible to increase delivery of ecosystem services and biodiversity habitat in the urban forest by creating multi-layered vegetation.
Discussion and outlook
The evidence suggests a clear answer to our title question: yes, with care and innovation, dense cities can be green through strategic land sharing anchored in multi-layered vegetation. High density curbs sprawl and emissions but requires proactive greening to resolve the compact city paradox achieved when urban form becomes a three-dimensional ecosystem. Here, metropolitan-scale land sparing protects wildlands, while pervasive multi-layered vegetation within city limits maximizes ecological function and liveability. In practice, a holistic greening approach combining sidewalk trees, green roofs, pocket parks, and urban forests allows even the densest neighborhoods to achieve comfortable microclimates once thought impossible in concrete jungles ().
Realizing this vision, however, requires confronting several limitations that are often underplayed. Biophysically, water scarcity, shallow soils and climate extremes constrain where multi-layered vegetation can thrive, particularly on and around high-rise buildings in hot, dry regions. Institutionally, fragmented land ownership, short-term development horizons and limited horticultural capacity can lock cities into simplified planting palettes and management regimes that undermine biodiversity and long-term resilience. In some contexts, multi-layered greening can also contribute to “green gentrification” if investments are concentrated in already advantaged areas and drive housing cost increases and displacement (). Socially, concerns about safety, visibility and perceived disorder can limit acceptance of more complex vegetation structures in some public spaces (). These constraints point to clear priorities: developing context-specific design templates for multi-layered plantings, integrating nature-based water management, strengthening governance and policy instruments that coordinate public-private greening while explicitly addressing equity and anti-displacement goals, and co-designing vegetation structure with communities to build support for more complex urban nature ().
Reframing around SLAMS principles of a few large reserves for biodiversity refugia alongside many small, richly structured patches unlocks land sharing's potential in space-constrained contexts. Every green element, from micro-pockets to urban forests, should prioritize vertical complexity (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, groundcovers) to amplify cooling, stormwater regulation, air filtration and habitat per unit area. Engineered soils, permeable surfaces and adaptive horticulture overcome biophysical limits, while community engagement reframes multi-layered systems as safe, aesthetic assets that enhance wellbeing.
Policymakers should enforce canopy targets, green replacement policies and specialized maintenance contracts, guided by metrics like the 3-30-300 rule () for equitable access. Successful models Singapore's vertical greening mandates, Vitoria-Gasteiz's interior green belt, Milan's Bosco Verticale scale these principles. Researchers must quantify multi-layered synergies, such as cooling thresholds or health impacts from distributed green.
Committing to this vision can help ensure dense cities are vibrant ecosystems: skyscrapers entwined with thriving vegetation, delivering climate resilience, biodiversity and human health.
Statements
Author contributions
MR: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AH: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. CS: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. CF: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. NW: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. SL: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. The authors gratefully acknowledge support from the Tree Research and Education Endowment Fund (TREE Fund) through Grant No. 25-JK-01, Trait-Based Assessment of Urban Tree Health and Climate Resilience. This funding supported the research underpinning this work.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The handling editor [VB] declared a past co-authorship [Urban forests as essential infrastructure for climate resilience and biodiversity: a call to policymakers] with the authors [MR, CS, CF, NW, SL].
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Parts of Figure 1 were refined using generative AI image editing tools to enhance clarity and visual polish. No other content was generated or modified by AI.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
BabingtonA.HughesM.FarrellC.ChambersJ.StandishR. J. (2023). Preference for multi-layered, flowering, woody streetscape plantings in a mediterranean-type climate. Urban For. Urban Green.89:128094. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128094
2
BoltonC.RahmanM. A.ArmsonD.EnnosA. R. (2014). Effectiveness of an ivy covering at insulating a building against the cold in Manchester, United Kingdom: a preliminary investigation. Build. Environ.80, 32–5. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.05.020
3
FangC.YuD. (2016). China's New Urbanization Developmental Paths, Blueprints and Patterns. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and Science Press Ltd. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-49448-6
4
FarrellC.BathgateR. (2025). We planted two woody meadows a decade ago to see what would thrive. Now the concept is popular across Australia. The Conversation.
5
FarrellC.LivesleyS. J.ArndtS. K.BeaumontL.BurleyH.EllsworthD.et al. (2022). Can we integrate ecological approaches to improve plant selection for green infrastructure?Urban For. Urban Green.76:127732. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127732
6
FarrisJ. T. (2001) The barriers to using urban infill development to achieve smart growth. Hous. Policy Debate. 12, 1–30. doi: 10.1080/10511482.2001.9521395.
7
FischerJ.AbsonD. J.ButsicV.ChappellM. J.EkroosJ.HanspachJ.et al. (2014). Land sparing vs. land sharing: moving forward. Conserv. Lett.7, 149–57. doi: 10.1111/conl.12084
8
GalvãoA.RodriguesM.MataJ.SilvaC. M. (2025) Green walls for greywater treatment: a comprehensive review of operational parameters climate influence on treatment performance. Water Res. 272:122948. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2024.122948
9
García-LamarcaM.AnguelovskiI.VennerK. (2022). Challenging the financial capture of urban greening. Nat. Commun. 13:7132. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-34942-x
10
GiacomelloE.ValagussaM. (2015). Vertical greenery: evaluation the High-Rise Vegetation of the Bosco Verticale. Milan: Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.
11
HahsA. K.FournierB.AronsonM. F. J.NilonC. H.Herrera-MontesA.SalisburyA. B.et al. (2023). Urbanisation generates multiple trait syndromes for terrestrial animal taxa worldwide. Nat. Commun.14:4751. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-39746-1
12
HansenR.OlafssonA. S.van der JagtA. P. N.RallE.PauleitS. (2019). Planning multifunctional green infrastructure for compact cities: what is the state of practice?Ecol. Indic.96, 99–110. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.09.042
13
HawkenS.de BeaujeuG.HahsA.DobbieM.IgnatievaM.CabanekA.et al. (2025). Biodiversity Positive Design Guide: a Process for Landscape Architects and Allied Professionals. The University of Adelaide. Canberra: Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA).
14
KeizerwaardL. (2025). Vertical Forests How Living Architecture Transforms Urban Density. BIMsmith.
15
KirkH.GarrardG. E.CroeserT.BackstromA.BerthonK.FurlongC.et al. (2021). Building biodiversity into the urban fabric: a case study in applying Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design (BSUD). Urban For. Urban Green. 62:127176. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127176
16
KonijnendijkC. C. (2023). Evidence-based guidelines for greener, healthier, more resilient neighbourhoods: introducing the 3-30-300 rule. J. For. Res.34, 821–30. doi: 10.1007/s11676-022-01523-z
17
LisA.IwankowskiP. (2021). Why is dense vegetation in city parks unpopular? The mediative role of sense of privacy and safety. Urban For. Urban Green.59:126988. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.126988
18
MarchionniV.SzotaC.FarrellC.LivesleyS. J.NiceK. A.ProdanovicV.et al. (2026). Urban greening and water strategies are key to adapt Australian cities to climate change and urban growth. J. Hydrol.666:134716. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.134716
19
OkeC.LeeK.HarrisonL.CroeserT.TaylorM.WandinD.et al. (2024). Playbook for Urban Biodiversity. Melbourne: Melbourne Centre for Cities, University of Melbourne.
20
PattnaikN.RahmanM. A.PauleitS. (2025). Urban vegetation structure and composition influence pedestrian thermal comfort in public spaces: a case study in Munich. Urban For. Urban Green.114:129162. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2025.129162
21
PhillipsD.LindquistM. (2021). Just weeds? Comparing assessed and perceived biodiversity of urban spontaneous vegetation in informal greenspaces in the context of two American legacy cities. Urban For. Urban Green.62:127151. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127151
22
RahmanM. A.CheungP. K.PattnaikN.LamT. W. L.DadeM. C.JimC. Y.et al. (2026). “The microclimate and human thermal comfort impacts of increased vegetation complexity in Urban Streets and Greenspaces,” in Nature in Cities, Nurturing Cities, ed. A. Cheshmehzangi, S. Alidoust, W. Y. Chen, R. Fuller (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore). 113–39. doi: 10.1007/978-981-95-5487-4_6
23
RahmanM. A.StratopoulosL. M.Moser-ReischlA.ZölchT.HäberleK.-H.RötzerT.et al. (2020). Traits of trees for cooling urban heat islands: a meta-analysis. Build. Environ.170:106606. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106606
24
RigolonA.CollinsT. (2023). The green gentrification cycle. Urban Stud.60, 770–85. doi: 10.1177/00420980221114952
25
SchriekeD.SzotaC.WilliamsN. S. G.FarrellC. (2023). Evaluating the effectiveness of spontaneous vegetation for stormwater mitigation on green roofs. Sci. Total Environ.898:165643. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165643
26
SelinskeM.BekessyS. A.WintleB. A.GarrardG. E. (2023). Biodiversity needs both land sharing and land sparing. Nature620:727. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-02631-4
27
SingerM. N.HamoudaM. A.El-HassanH.HingeG. (2022). Permeable pavement systems for effective management of stormwater quantity and quality: a bibliometric analysis and highlights of recent advancements. Sustainability14:13061. doi: 10.3390/su142013061
28
SmileyE. T.UrbanJ.FiteK. (2019). Comparison of tree responses to different soil treatments under concrete pavement. Arboric. Urban For.45, 303–14. doi: 10.48044/jauf.2019.027
29
SoanesK.LentiniP. E. (2019). When cities are the last chance for saving species. Front. Ecol. Environ.17, 225–31. doi: 10.1002/fee.2032
30
SzangoliesL.RohwäderM.-S.JeltschF. (2022). Single large AND several small habitat patches: a community perspective on their importance for biodiversity. Basic Appl. Ecol.65, 16–27. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2022.09.004
31
ThrelfallC. G.GunnL. D.DavernM.KendalD. (2022). Beyond the luxury effect: Individual and structural drivers lead to ‘urban forest inequity' in public street trees in Melbourne, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 218:104311.
32
ThrelfallC. G.MataL.MackieJ. A.HahsA. K.StorkN. E.WilliamsN. S. G.et al. (2017). Increasing biodiversity in urban green spaces through simple vegetation interventions. J. Appl. Ecol.54, 1874–83. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12876
33
WongM. S.HassellR.PhuaH. W. (2018). Oasia hotel Downtown, Singapore: a tall prototype for the tropics. CTBUH Res. Pap. 3, 12–19.
34
ZhaoJ.RaoQ.SunC.IkramR. M. A.FanC.LiJ.et al. (2024). A systematic review of the vertical green system for balancing ecology and urbanity. Water16:1472. doi: 10.3390/w16111472
Summary
Keywords
land sharing, multi-layered vegetation, SLAMS approach, sustainable cities, urban biodiversity, Urban density, vertical greening
Citation
Rahman MA, Hahs A, Szota C, Farrell C, Williams N and Livesley SJ (2026) Multi-layered Urban Forests: can a City be dense and green?. Front. Sustain. Cities 8:1842594. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2026.1842594
Received
30 March 2026
Revised
25 June 2026
Accepted
21 July 2026
Published
10 August 2026
Volume
8 - 2026
Edited by
Victor L. Barradas, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico
Reviewed by
Alejandra Narváez Vallejo, Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Colombia
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Rahman, Hahs, Szota, Farrell, Williams and Livesley.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Mohammad A Rahman, mohammad.a.rahman@unimelb.edu.au
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.