Erratum to: Climatic Change

DOI 10.1007/s10584-014-1107-2

  1. 1.

    The version of Figure 3 included in the original publication of this article was an older version of the Figure that started in 2000 instead of 2010. Please find the corrected version here.

    Fig. 3
    figure 3

    Projected change in coral cover from 2000 to 2100 for three locations and three climate scenarios (REF, POL3.7, and POL4.5). a Hawaii, b Puerto Rico, c Florida

  2. 2.

    There was a scripting error in the calculation of total future value of coral reef visitation associated with application of an incorrect baseline year for regional population growth estimates. Future values were also calculated and summed on a monthly basis, instead of the annual basis intended by the authors for consistency with the recreational fishing monetization. Please find the corrected Table 1 here and a revision of the results paragraph that describes this table. The conclusions in the original paper are unchanged by these small adjustments in total future value.

    Table 1 Increase in total future value of recreational fishing and coral reef visitation from 2011 to 2100 for the POL3.7 and POL4.5 scenarios compared to the REF scenario (millions 2005$)

The paragraph associated with Table 1 should read as follows (corrected values in bold type):

As shown in Table 1, the greatest recreational benefits (i.e., reduced damages under the POL3.7 scenario compared to the REF scenario) are in Hawaii, with an average net present value of ~ $17 billion (95 % CI of $9–25 billion). The net present value of recreational benefits is positive but notably lower in Florida (~$1.2 billion; 95 % CI of $0.61.8 billion) where coral reefs are already close to bleaching thresholds. The estimate of recreational benefits under the POL3.7 scenario in Puerto Rico (~$0.3 million, 95 % CI of $0.2–0.5 million) is a lower-bound estimate for residents only that is not comparable to the other locations where nonresident tourist visits to reefs are also included.