Correction to: Environment Systems and Decisions https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-023-09899-x


In the original publication of the article, the following errors have erroneously occurred:

  1. (1)

    Table 4, last column (CF mean): unlike the other columns, the numbers are not decimal aligned.

  2. (2)

    Table 5: Still like to see decimal alignment for the three critical numbers in each row (i.e., $16,610,456 with $1,265,083; $9,913,243 with $4,921,729; and $8,931,397 with $20,125,588).

    The numbers in parentheses do not need to be decimal aligned—e.g., they could just be centered in their columns—but if this is not feasible, decimal aligning for those is OK. Also, I'd like to see boldface or some other highlighting of the headings “10/100/1000” and “$100 million/$1 billion/$10 billion” so that they stand out from the actual data.

  3. (3)

    Table 6: the two headings in the table still have different visual prominence. The “Explanations for differences across magnitudes” heading has the same font emphasis as the “Self-reported information sources for making tradeoff decisions” heading, but the former has more prominence because the heavy line separates it from the items that comprise these explanations. The second heading has neither the light line to separate it from the previous items (as the first heading has to separate it from the table title), nor the heavy line to separate it from the items that comprise these information sources. The latter are indented to provide a small distinction from the second heading, but no such indentation occurs for the explanation items, which would make the second heading more prominent. I don't care which option is used (bolding or italicizing these two headings is another choice); I'd just like to have the table more readable.

  4. (4)

    Last paragraph before Sect. 5, lines 1030 and 1035: the symbol should be R2adj, so that the “R” is normal, the “2” is superscript, and the “adj” is subscript.

All the above errors have been corrected in the original paper.