Correction to: Sustainability Science https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01189-w

In the original publication of this article, there was an error in the values of the NitrogenTax and CarbonTax scenarios and minor errors presented in the main text, Fig. 1b, Fig. 2b, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, and Table 2.

Under the section “Scenarios”, in the sentence of the last paragraph now reading “… (NitrogenTax, NitrogenTax330, CarbonTax, and PhaseinNTax&SM) is conducted…”, “330” replaces “120”.

Under the section “Results”, in the sentence of the second paragraph now reading “…, a nitrogen taxation scheme (NitrogenTax) with respective reductions of 13.4 and 9.8 Mt N fertilizer (Fig. 1b)”, “13.4” replaces “13.5”, and “9.8 Mt” replaces “10.8 Mt”. Figure 1b is correspondingly corrected.

Fig. 1
figure 1

N fertilizer use in China in the main scenarios (a) and their sub-scenarios (b). The validation data of N fertilizer amount used in the historical period are based on Bodirsky et al. (2014), Lassaletta et al. (2014), and FAOSTAT. a N fertilizer amount used in 2020 in the PAU scenario is slightly higher than that in the AMB scenario, which is due to the lower emission tax compared to the increase in N fertilizer price. b NMEModerate scenario captures the SNUpE effect based on econometric estimation, while the NMEHigh scenario estimates the combined effects of high enhancement in SNUpE and MRS

Full size image

In the sentence of the third paragraph “…, the nitrogen surplus can be kept well below the country’s N planetary boundary–26 Mt (Chang et al. 2021) (Fig. 2a).”, “Fig. 2a” replaces “Fig. 5b”.

Fig. 2
figure 2

a N surplus between 2000 and 2060 across three main scenarios: the dashed yellow line represents China’s regional nitrogen planetary boundary. b Changes in cumulative N pollution in terms of N2O, NH3–N, \({\mathrm{NO}}_{3}^{-}{-}{\mathrm{N}}\), and NO2–N by 2060 across the main and corresponding sub-scenarios relative to those in the CAU scenario

Full size image

In the fourth paragraph, the sentence now reading as “The cumulative N2O emissions in the AMB scenario can be reduced by 31.8% in 2060, 1.5 times as those in the PAU scenario (Fig. 2b)”, the value of emission reduction in 2030 was removed.

In the sentence beginning with “The reduction in cumulative N2O emissions…”, “1995-2060” replaces “2015-2060”, and “1.4% to 28.7%” replaces “1.5 to 40.3%”. In the next sentence, “NMEHigh” replaces “NMEhHigh”, and “28.7%” replaces “40.3%”. Figure 2b is corrected.

In Figs. 4 and 5, the points of NitrogenTax, NitrogenTax120, and CarbonTax were shown incorrectly. The correct figures and the caption of Fig. 4 are updated.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Environmental and economic impacts of the FMS removal and emission taxation schemes. PhaseinNTax&SM scenario is the combination of SubsidyRemoval and phase-in nitrogen tax starting at 2025. In the NitrogenTax330 scenario, a nitrogen tax is imposed in China after 2015 at the price of 330 USD/ton N, which is the same as the increase of fertilizer price if fertilizer manufacturing subsidies are abolished

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Impacts of all the policy sub-scenarios including SubsidyRemoval, SNUpE, MRS, NME, and GHG emissions taxes. Dashed lines represent the results of the “Zero Growth Strategy”

Full size image

Under the section “Impacts on food prices, food self‑sufficiency, and productivity”, in the first paragraph where the sentence beginning with “Compared with CAU…”, “1.0%” replaces “6.6%”.

In the sentence beginning with “However, the food prices in the AMB scenario in 2030 and 2060 are…”, “20.3%” replaces “38.7%”, and “22.8%” replaces “38.0%”. In the next sentence beginning with “For the livestock products…”, “22.4%” replaces “22.9%”.

The values in the column of NitrogenTax in Table 2 are replaced by “8.5”, “8.5”, “11.5”, “15.1”, “4.7”, and “2.7”, respectively.

Under the section “Complementary analysis of N cost effect on the environment and food security”, the fourth sentence now reads as “Model results indicate that emission taxation schemes can lead to less N fertilizer use (Fig. 4a), while the subsidy removal policy is more effective in fertilizer reduction when considering the costs.” The next sentence now reads as “… in the SubsidyRemoval scenario is 241.8 kg N/USD in 2030, three and eight times that of the nitrogen tax and carbon tax scenarios, …”.

Finally, under the section “Sensitivity analysis of fertilizer prices”, the sentence now reads as “The model results also show that the price elasticity of fertilizer demand is relatively low, on average 4.2%”. In the next sentence, “4.1” replaces “4.2”.

The changes do not affect the major findings and conclusions of the study. The revised text, figures, and tables are available in the HTML and PDF versions of the article and in the PDF version of the supplementary information.

The original article has been updated.