Ecosystem Framework for Community Life Circles based on Life Projects in the Post-COVID-19 Era Tao Chena, Yong-Ki Lee*a, Juyoung Chang a aDongseo
University *ykl77@gdsu.dongseo.ac.kr
Abstract | The COVID-19 pandemic has created an urgent demand for proximity life services. However, there is a lack of platforms that are designed by communities themselves that allow residents to take part in larger conversations and build life services together. Therefore, this study seeks to propose an ecosystem framework that allows people to build their own community life circles. We summarize the design strategy for developing enabling ecosystems through analysing communities of practice and community cases. This paper introduces (1) a Community Operating System (COS) framework, (2) a life project process, and (3) community life circles for incubating life projects that satisfy people’s daily needs. The above three parts constitute a life project-centred ecosystem framework that seeks to cultivate a design culture and responds to complex problems through collective reflection and co-creation. KEYWORDS | ECOSYSTEM FRAMEWORK, COMMUNITY LIFE CIRCLES, LIFE PROJECT, COMMUNITY OPERATING SYSTEM
T. Chen, Y. Lee, J. Chang
1. Introduction The sudden COVID-19 crisis has not only placed a great burden on global society, but has also deeply impacted our lifestyles. Therefore, it is necessary to examine our living environments and comfort levels. During the pandemic, while using digital technology to assist daily life, we also began to rethink the convenience of surrounding communities. In the post-pandemic era, the demand for this kind of proximity community services will increase. Therefore, we need to know how to integrate online and offline collaborations for supporting local residents in building their own community life circles. This paper introduces an ecosystem framework for local communities based on the life projects. That is, this paper seeks to promote the collaborative lifestyles and the establishment of sustainable community life circles by setting up a platform for collective conversations. An enabling ecosystem can help foster a hybrid community with an environment where physical and virtual spaces co-exist and interact. The key design strategies are extracted from the literature review of the communities of practice (CoP) and case studies. Based on these strategies, we designed an enabling ecosystem, which can help foster a hybrid community with an environment where physical and virtual spaces co-exist and interact. Democratic participation that is centred on life projects offers new meanings for community spaces and facilitates various creative efforts.
2. Community life circles based on life projects Community life circles usually centre on residents within a specified radius. These circles cover a variety of spaces where services necessary for daily life are provided. For example, the mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo (Hidalgo, 2020)(Hidalgo, 2020) proposed the “LE PARIS DU 1/4 HEURE” (a quarter of Paris), which aimed at changing the daily lives of Parisians and the organization of the city. The mayor of Barcelona, Ada Colau (Colau, 2016), introduced the concept of “SUPERBLOCKS” to encourage the construction of small democratic sites designed to alter city space. The Shanghai government (Shanghai Government, 2016) proposed the “15-MINUTE COMMUNITY-LIFE CIRCLE”, which proposes providing basic services and public activity space within a 15 minutes walking distance of residents. Although they are all based on common ideas, the designs are also different, which depend on the local environment and people's living habits. Assuming that local residents participate in community service design according to their own life trajectory, the adaptability of problem solving and feedback may be stronger. These interventions could include development of services that, using resources in communities, create new social and operational values for them (Manzini, 2009). In the process of community design, the voluntary formation of bottom-up collaborative organizations by local residents based on consensus is the main force to ensure the implementation of life projects.
Ecosystem Framework for Community Life Circles based on Life Projects in the Post-COVID-19 Era
3. Related Studies 3.1 Communities of practice (CoP) from the bottom-up In this section we briefly review literature on the role of communities of practice (CoP) in cooperative projects and the principles of cultivating CoP, as well as methodological clues sought to improve community collaboration capabilities. Wenger introduced the concept and research scope of CoP, which describes groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do, and who learn how to do it better as they interact regularly (Wenger, 2011). Three characteristics are essential in CoP: domain, community and practice. “The domain: A community of practice is not merely a club of friends or a network of connections between people. It has an identity defined by a shared domain of interest. The community: In pursuing their interest in their domain, members engage in joint activities and discussions, help each other, and share information. They build relationships that enable them to learn from each other. The practice: A community of practice is not merely a community of interest. Members of a community of practice are practitioners.” (Wenger, 2006) An effective community self-organization requires voluntary organization based on a common and intentional topic, and each member actively contributes knowledge and skills and learns in practice. The goal of community design is to bring out the community's own internal direction, character, and energy, i.e., community DNA. In Cultivating Communities of Practice, seven design principles are introduced to promote the development of CoP: 1. Design for evolution; 2. Open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives; 3. Invite different levels of participation; 4. Develop both public and private community spaces; 5. Focus on value; 6. Combine familiarity and excitement; 7. Create a rhythm for the community. We are particularly interested in the first five points, which inspires our attention to the selforganizational collaboration approach in community design. Usually, dialogue and collaboration based on problems in a specific scenario can be more effective. With continuous project practice, rich knowledge and experience can be accumulated for the community. The services provided by members involved in collaboration bring value not only to the members themselves, but also to the overall welfare of the community. On the other hand, participants need interoperable, flexible and specific collaboration tools to support their work (Liliane & Romain & Frederic, 2006). We find that digital community platforms can provide resource information and organize management activities. However, the limitations and difficulties of CoP are reflected in the lack of trust, time and leadership among its members.
T. Chen, Y. Lee, J. Chang
“Although participants are somewhat familiar with the tools, they mostly seem content with receiving and accessing information, not searching for a more active participation […]The fact that members come from different organizations, are not as strongly bound by the same objectives, and need time to build trust between them explains the difficulties in creating a CoP […] they need to build trust relationships, to get to know each other, to also try to function in the same timeframe…it is true that partners tend to be more active in specific research projects than in the general knowledge sharing which is one of the objectives of the CoP/research project.” (Tremblay & Psyché, 2012) To sum up, creating the vitality (or motivation) of collaboration in CoP is a real challenge. We believe that the real motivation comes from the rigid demands of local residents. These demands can achieve resource matching and organizational management through a platform. On the one hand, local residents organize and practice around the demands under the specific scenario, on the other, they rely on community online platforms as flexible tools to participate in community design to achieve resource expansion, knowledge sharing, and project management. In short, building a bottom-up life-oriented socio-technical system requires not only active collaborative practices among members of physical communities, but also a digital technology platform to support the construction of community ecosystems. The following is a comparative analysis of case studies.
3.2 Case studies for community design The following three cases are “Nextdoor” in the United States, “Dingdong Community” in China and “Sungmisan Community” in South Korea. Through comparative analysis, it puts forward design strategies to rely on local residents to build sustainable community development. Nextdoor is an online social networking website launched in early 2011, connecting residents of specific communities. Each community has its own Nextdoor website, which can only be accessed by community residents. New users can only join the community after confirming that they actually live in the community. In addition, Nextdoor requires the use of real names instead of pseudonyms, and is visible to other users throughout the system. It aims to create a safe, trusted environment where neighbours can connect with each other. Further, Nextdoor provides advice on that content, with “Frequently Asked Questions” that suggests users post about service recommendations, crime reports, lost pets, event promotion, and so forth; it also explicitly states that selfpromotional messages are inappropriate and will be deleted (Masden & Grevet, 2014). Dingdong Community is an online neighbourhood social platform launched in 2014, claiming "social", "Online-to-Offline (O2O)", "life link" as its three major characteristics. It is an APP for daily community life services, which calculates residents' social data and recommends surrounding business and community services. The product mainly provides three functions: fast delivery (express delivery, water delivery, fast food), community life (second-hand trading, carpooling, payment of utilities), home service (housekeeping, nanny, tutor).
Ecosystem Framework for Community Life Circles based on Life Projects in the Post-COVID-19 Era
Table 1. Case analysis and design strategies. CASE STUDIES
NEXTDOOR
DINGDONG COMMUNITY
SUNGMISAN COMMUNITY
Focus on
Private neighbourhood social network
Social media attributes and business
Resident problems and needs
Content
Passing along crime statistics, notices of lost pets, and upcoming community events
Fast delivery, community life, home service
Co-parenting centre, K12 education, multiple life cooperatives
Trust and safety
Extensive service information
Diverse community life
“Islanding” effect Not conducive to the flow of community resources
Lack of attention to the real needs of users
Lack of an effective management platform after expansion
Trust, local community
Social attributes
Endogenous development
Advantage Disadvantage
Key elements Design strategy
1. Project design is based on the real needs and life trajectory of residents. 2. Support the development of solutions based on local community resources. 3. Provide a platform for dialogue that facilitates self-organization and collaboration among local residents. 4. Specific scenarios are more conducive to promoting collaboration. 5. Providing multiple role positioning for residents is conducive to dynamic adjustment of power and responsibility structure. 6. The perfection of community service is a process of gradual self-growth based on real needs.
However, many factors ultimately led to the failure of the project. The main reason is that it is not centred on the real needs of users, but that of developers who define the needs of users, resulting in low resident participation. The Sungmisan community is another success case. The Sungmisan community began in 1994, when about ten couples formed the Woori Co-parenting Centre, the first cooperative in South Korea to provide childcare services for neighbourhood families, because they were dissatisfied with the education provided by the public and private sectors (Yoo, 2010; Wui et al, 2013). People interested in co-parenting moved to the Sungmisan community. This implies that the Sungmisan community is a sort of post-conventional community formed out of “the reciprocal networks utilizing cooperative relationships” rather than any fixed conventional boundary (Lee, K., 2010, p.145). Five more cooperatives and one after-school care program have been established with the increase in demand. What community members do together has attracted the participation of new members, thus beginning a virtuous circle. As the children graduated from co-parenting to go to primary schools, after-
T. Chen, Y. Lee, J. Chang
school programs were established; and as the children went to middle school, the need for an alternative school was brought up, and an alternative high school program was established in 2004. (Han & Shim, 2019, p.22). Sungmisan continues to enrich community services around the needs of residents, including co-housing, car sharing, food cooperatives, community restaurants, credit cooperatives, handicraft workshops, radio stations and theatres. It is worth noting that the Sungmisan community does not focus on online social platforms, but more on issues and needs than the first two cases. Cooperatives and participants that form the Sungmisan community network may best be understood as "a network of life communities"(Wui, 2013, p.61). Naturally, with the expansion of the community scale, it is necessary to establish an online platform to jointly manage community information and resources. Based on the above analysis, we have refined some key elements and design strategies (see Table 1).
4. Ecosystem Framework - COS Digital technology is particularly suited for promoting citizen activity, and it specifically helps citizens find their voice. Therefore, it is advisable to integrate online platforms and share researches, as well as mobilize community projects and promote broadcasting design experiences and culture. The various social services of digital social innovation as well as distributed production and consumption (Dekker, 2006) reflect a collaborative relationship between people. Within this network of individuals, personal and integral benefits can be realized at the same time. Manzini pointed out “a community too may be described as a mesh of interweaving conversations, and its nature will depend on the types of conversation taking place within it and what sparks them.” (Manzini, 2019). In other words, encouraging community members to find their own solutions by providing a conversation platform is advantageous. Therefore, we interpret a community to be an opportunity for exploring collective intelligence. The ecosystem framework for building COS can facilitate various conversations and promote cooperation, while also encouraging residents to build their own community life circles. Online platforms have the unique ability to realize this aim. There are many platforms that provide social services, but the majority of them cannot cultivate a community for sustainable, collaborative living. This is due to people’s limited experience with adopting bottom-up collective solutions, and the relatively insufficient skills of participants. Through "Life Projects," members can conduct dialogues and experiments around themes of common concern in their life. On the one hand, stakeholders form designing coalitions (through selforganization) can analyse and solve common problems using low-cost practices. This allows them to continuously gain problem-solving experience. On the other hand, participants can be assigned different project roles based on individual skills and conditions in order to
Ecosystem Framework for Community Life Circles based on Life Projects in the Post-COVID-19 Era
encourage synergy between members and utilize collective intelligence. On this basis, we designed a COS framework and life project process.
4.1 COS Framework COS takes community resources as infrastructure support, combining digital technologies to optimize the sharing of local resources and promote communication and collaboration. This can become a platform for supporting creative projects focused on life. COS understands the community to be a living organism, and uses an endogenous development model (Tsurumi & Tadashi, 1989) to incubate life projects. Through the transformation of resource at all three layers, COS activates local resources in order to nurture self-renewal and promote the sustainable development of the community. The diagram below demonstrates the operation framework of COS (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The COS framework. Using COS as a platform, we integrate community resources and promote cooperation among residents. This, in turn, gradually promotes the improvement of community services and lifestyle change.
The enabling platforms under this framework make the undertaking of new cooperative projects possible. Details are as follow: •
The self-organization of members is established based on common problems and issues. Life projects are planned by groups and incubated after gaining
T. Chen, Y. Lee, J. Chang
•
• •
•
support from professionals, policymakers, and residents. New resource values can be generated during this process. These are secondary resources. Improve and perfect the service scenarios by combining the community life trajectory and daily demands. It is necessary to make more accurate designs targeting project details based on life trajectories. It is also necessary to test these designs in real life. The projects that fit the real demands will be transformed into actual products and services. The project income belongs to participants and the community. The majority of potential products and services can be regarded as belonging to the community brand and should be accurately managed through cooperatives. It is necessary to promote community business start-ups and employment through the platform economy. Diverse community brands can satisfy the daily demands of the community, forming a life circle in close proximity to residents. Diverse community brands enrich the ecosystem of regional services within the life radius. Once the ecosystem is formed, the productive and consuming lifestyle of people will be changed.
The value of COS is that it facilitates a collaborative lifestyle. All people, families, neighbours, and cities can self-organize to carry out projects and share services. Each person is a node in a collaborative network, solving individual problems and, in turn, increasing the overall benefits for community services. COS can transform the experiences of the participants and teach them the value of sharing (Manzini, 2019). Once the number of users increases, the value of a project will grow as (Shapiro & Varian, 1999). COS can create a hybrid environment, and all these life projects can operate in three dimensions: human society, the physical world, and cyberspace. This is different from pure online interactions that lack the possibility of being realized offline. However, in our view, offline face-to-face dialogue and action are indispensable. Interaction in the physical dimension and close proximity to others are the catalysts that can bring the project to the final stage of transformation. Online, big data can be gathered and analysed as a resource, and knowledge and skills can be shared. Offline, members live in the same space and are familiar and trusting with one another, as they empathize with each other over daily problems. Members self-organize around common problems and goals, and can publish their project proposals in COS. During the process, it is possible to combine collective intelligence to create a suitable solution.
4.2 Framework application - Life project process A good enabling ecosystem is comprehensive and open, as this allows different people in the community to participate differently and take on different roles and responsibilities during the collaboration process. Participants can be divided into seven roles according to the processes of the project, which are shown in the Table 2.
Ecosystem Framework for Community Life Circles based on Life Projects in the Post-COVID-19 Era
Table 2. Seven roles in the process of a life project. ROLES
RESPONSIBILITY
ACTORS
Seekers
Challenges
Residents;
Solvers
Solutions
Residents, Organizations, Government, Business;
Voters
Votes and comments
Residents, Experts, Others;
Experts
Feasible solutions
Residents, Experts;
Funders
Investments
Residents, Business, Government;
Co-producers
Production
Residents, Business;
Sales or Purchases
Residents, Business; Government
Traders
The overall design process of the life project includes four stages (Figure 2): challenge, integration, project, and operation. In the challenge stage, seekers raise questions in order to identify a challenge. These challenges mainly derive from the problems that seekers face in daily community life and corresponding life scenarios. These challenges form the data that is integrated into COS. During this Integration, COS gathers problems raised by seekers. First, platform experts filter these problems to confirm that they are appropriate. Then, solvers come up with solutions, most of which derive from the solution paths built from experiences of everyday life. Seekers and experts select the solutions with the most potential to be developed into design opportunities. This is carried out according to the principle that feasibility, viability, and desirability are crucial to the life project. In the project stage, voters cast votes and comment on life projects. The project that gets the most votes is regarded as a potential solution for raising funds and gaining support. Funds come from government subsidies, community funds, and investors. After securing funds, the project enters the operation stage. At this point, local factories, communities, designers, enterprises, and craftspeople join the project as co-producers. Then, the given products and services are delivered to traders. Throughout the process, projects are iterated according to the use situation in the pursuit of development. During this process, roles can be changed to fit the process. The key is to determine the effect of reallocating roles and relations as well as the potential energy, and to encourage participants to create new values.
T. Chen, Y. Lee, J. Chang
Figure 2. The Life project process. These four stages form a community of interest and reflect the values and responsibilities of the multiple roles in the process of cooperation. We all possess and have access to design. “However,” as Manzini states, “like all human talents, it must be stimulated and cultivated” (Manzini, 2015, p.31). Therefore, through the framework design, COS aims to enable members to spontaneously create and enrich social systems of community relations through life projects, so as to realize people's own community life circles.
4.3 Community life circles Diversified life circles form a distributed urban network. Complex urban systems were redistributed among network nodes that form a community. These nodes allow residents to best utilize existing local resources and learn from experiences (Murray, 2009). These experiences are part of the life trajectories of citizens. Therefore, it is necessary to encourage local residents to participate in building a community. As Manzini states, “Ultimately, this means that it is the people directly concerned who must have the power to decide what to do and how to do it” (Manzini, 2019, p.117). In other words, a community must be built by local residents. This approach allows residents to allocate basic services based on their life trajectories and the demands of daily life, e.g., 15-minute Community life circles (Figure 3). De Certeau calls this activity productive consumption, according to which the consumer is the producer of new meanings (De Certeau, 1984). However, to realize the benefits that come out of people designing their own lives, a platform that promotes community dialogue and co-creation is necessary. For this purpose, we propose this ecosystem framework.
Ecosystem Framework for Community Life Circles based on Life Projects in the Post-COVID-19 Era
Figure 3. 15-minute Community life circles. According to the life trajectory, the circles can be divided into life services accessible at 5, 10, and 15-minutes distances. The circles can be divided into many spheres. In the children's daily facilities circle, various schools serve as the core, and the circle features many facilities, such as playgrounds and training institutions. The office workers' weekend facilities circle features places of entertainment, shopping malls, community cultural centres, sports facilities, and supermarkets. This circle helps office workers participate in community life on weekends. The elderly daily facilities circle includes vegetable gardens as its core, and adjacent to these gardens are green spaces, small businesses, training institutions, and other facilities. Source: Shanghai Urban Planning and Land Resources Administration Bureau, China, 2016.
5. Conclusion As a vital basic unit of social governance, the community has shown new trends in community-oriented design. Local residents, as the main participants in the design, have gradually gained attention for building community life from local culture through bottom-up collaborative activities among their members. In some respects, this embodies a projectcentred democracy that is achieved through participating in collective conversations, activating the public resources of the community, and building life circles. However, relying on the residents to achieve projects of common concern, the key is to transform community members into communities of practice (CoP), thus creating "functional" social conditions through practice. To this end, we provide the dialogue platform COS that facilitates the selforganization and collaborative practice of local residents. As an ecosystem framework, COS enables community members to connect with each other and actively participate in the community to create value through life projects. Our main contribution is two-fold. First, we planned a COS framework from within the community itself, revitalizing local resources,
T. Chen, Y. Lee, J. Chang
designed life projects based on the real needs and life trajectory of residents, and obtained resource support and management through online platforms to gradually improve community services. Second, we demonstrated the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders involved in the life project process, and specified problem scenarios to stimulate the enthusiasm of the population and dynamically adjust the structure of authority and responsibility. We believe that improving the community life circle based on life projects is a biological growth process. As a preliminary study, this paper provides a theoretical framework for the future development of comprehensive web services and design toolkits for community life circles. Based on life projects, COS can activate the potential of collaborative creation and rebuild public services of the community in a low-cost way. In the future, it has the potential to build community life circles that are more adaptive to the daily demands and behaviours of residents.
References Archer, B. (1984). Systematic Method for Designers, In Developments in Design Methodology, ed. Nigel Cross. Wiley, New York, 57–82. Hidalgo, A. (2020). Le paris Quart D’Heure, D.U., & en Commun, P. From https://annehidalgo2020.com/thematique/ville-du-1-4h/. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8, No. 2, 5–21. De Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven Rendall. University of California Press. Deng, P. (2015). Why “Ding-Dong Community” Cannot Succeed Like American Version “Nextdoor”?. Journal of Service Science and Management. 08. 649-654. Dekker, S. (2006). Resilience Engineering: Chronicling the Emergence of Confused Consensus, In Resilience Engineering, edited by E Hollnagel, D Woods and N Leveson. Ashgate, Aldershot. Dorst, C. (2015). Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA; London, England. Selloni, D. (2017). CoDesign for Public-Interest Services. Springer Press. Esnault, L., & Zeiliger, R., & Vermeulin, F. (2006). On the Use of Actor-Network Theory for Developing Web Services Dedicated to Communities of Practice. Han, S., & Shim, Y. (2019). Social Governance as a Process of Structuration: From the Sungmisan Bottom-up Movement to the Seoul City Policy of Neighborhood Community Reconstruction. Social Governance in Korea and China, 15-33. Innonatives. (1.0 beta), Retrieved December 5, 2020, from https://www.innonatives.com. Landry, C. (2008). The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. 2nd edition. Routledge Press.
Ecosystem Framework for Community Life Circles based on Life Projects in the Post-COVID-19 Era
Lee, K. (2010). Creating Community Reciprocal Economy Networks by Cooperative Solidarity–The Case Study of Sungmisan-Maeul in Mapogu, Seoul. The Korean Journal of Cooperative Studies, 28(2), 143-71. Manzini, E. (2019). Politics of the Everyday. Bloomsbury Visual Arts Press, 116–117. Manzini, E. (2015). Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. MIT Press, 31–32. Murray, R. (2009). Dangers and Opportunity: Crisis and the New Social Economy. NESTAProvocations, Retrieved September 2009, from http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/reports/. Masden, C.A., Grevet, C., Grinter, R.E., Gilbert, E. and Edwards, W.K. (2014) Tensions in Scaling-Up Community Social Media: A Multi-Neighborhood Study of Nextdoor. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 32393248. Norman, D. (2004). Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books Press, 63. Simon, H.A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press. Shapiro, C., & Varian, H.R. (1999). Information Rules. Harvard Business School Press. Sleeswijk Visser, F. (2018). Structuring Roles in Research Through Design Collaboration. Design Research Society. SUPLRAB (2016). Shanghai PLANNING GUIDANCE of 15-Minute Community-LIFE, Circle. Shanghai Urban Planning and Land Resources Administration Bureau. Tremblay, D., & Psyché, V. (2012). Analysis of processes of cooperation and knowledge sharing in a community of practice with a diversity of actors. Computer Science and Information Systems. Tsurumi, K., & Kawata, T. (1989). Endogenous Development Theory. Tokyo University Press. Trist, E. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems: A conceptual framework and an action research program. Occasional Paper no. 2. Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of Practice: A Brief Introduction. Wenger, E., & McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2014). Seven Principles for Cultivating Communities of Practice. Wui, S. (2013). History and Thoughts of Sungmisan Maeul. Think Tank of National Territorial Planning and Development. Wui, S. (2013), Surviving Together in an Urban City. Hwanghae Review 80, 61-78. Yamazaki, R. (2012). Community Design No Jidai Jibuntachi De Machi Wo Tsukuru, Chuokoronshinsha Press. Yoo, C. (2010). 10 Years of My Life in Urban Village. RADICAL REVIEW, 2010. 03, 55-99.
T. Chen, Y. Lee, J. Chang
About the Authors: Author 1 Tao Chen is a PhD candidate at the Graduate School of Design, Dongseo University. His research is mainly focused on community centered design with the collective impact approach for building a culture of collaborative innovation. sifenxayct@sina.com Author 2 Yong-Ki Lee is Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of Design, Dongseo University. He has earned his Ph.D. in UX Design at the Department of Industrial Design, KAIST. ykl77@gdsu.dongseo.ac.kr Author 3 Juyoung Chang is Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Design, Dongseo University and Director of ‘Asia Design Center for Future’. Her main research interest is ‘design in cultural context’ with a particular focus on Korea and Asian culture. jychang@gdsu.dongseo.ac.kr Acknowledgements: This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF2019S1A5C2A04083375).