TY - JOUR

T1 - Correction to

T2 - Tourists’ valuation of nature in protected areas: A systematic review (Ambio, (2023), 52, 6, (1065-1084), 10.1007/s13280-023-01845-0)

AU - Gross, Milena

AU - Pearson, Jasmine

AU - Arbieu, Ugo

AU - Riechers, Maraja

AU - Thomsen, Simon

AU - Martín-López, Berta

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2024.

PY - 2025

Y1 - 2025

N2 - In the original published article, authors have identified a mismatch between the main text, figures, and the provided data set. While the figures are correct and align with the data set whereas the main text contains incorrect information. The sentence “Terrestrial ecosystems were more studied (n = 139; 70%) than marine (n = 61; 30%) and freshwater ecosystems (n = 46; 19%) (Fig. 4a)” appearing in the section Ecological and social characteristics of case studies should have been “Terrestrial ecosystems were more studied (n = 134; 88%%) than marine (n = 61; 40%) and freshwater ecosystems (n = 46; 30%) (Fig. 4a)”. And the sentence “Most articles collected quantitative data (n = 114; 75% of all articles), followed by qualitative data (n = 24; 17%) and both data types (n = 5; 5%) (Fig. 5a)” appearing in the sub section Data collection and analysis should have been “Most articles collected quantitative data (n = 114; 75% of all articles), followed by qualitative data (n = 26; 17%) and both data types (n = 8; 5%) (Fig. 5a).” The original article has been corrected.

AB - In the original published article, authors have identified a mismatch between the main text, figures, and the provided data set. While the figures are correct and align with the data set whereas the main text contains incorrect information. The sentence “Terrestrial ecosystems were more studied (n = 139; 70%) than marine (n = 61; 30%) and freshwater ecosystems (n = 46; 19%) (Fig. 4a)” appearing in the section Ecological and social characteristics of case studies should have been “Terrestrial ecosystems were more studied (n = 134; 88%%) than marine (n = 61; 40%) and freshwater ecosystems (n = 46; 30%) (Fig. 4a)”. And the sentence “Most articles collected quantitative data (n = 114; 75% of all articles), followed by qualitative data (n = 24; 17%) and both data types (n = 5; 5%) (Fig. 5a)” appearing in the sub section Data collection and analysis should have been “Most articles collected quantitative data (n = 114; 75% of all articles), followed by qualitative data (n = 26; 17%) and both data types (n = 8; 5%) (Fig. 5a).” The original article has been corrected.

KW - Ecosystems Research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85217568749&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s13280-024-02123-3

DO - 10.1007/s13280-024-02123-3

M3 - Comments / Debate / Reports

C2 - 39885018

AN - SCOPUS:85217568749

JO - Ambio

JF - Ambio

SN - 0044-7447

ER -