Next Article in Journal
What’s the Matter? Alcohol Use Risk Among Relatives of People with Mental Illness
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Campylobacter, Salmonella, and Shigella in Diarrheal Infections in Central Africa (1998–2022): A Systematic Review
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Correction

Correction: Duan, Y.; Li, S. Effects of Plant Communities on Human Physiological Recovery and Emotional Reactions: A Comparative Onsite Survey and Photo Elicitation Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 721

1
College of Landscape Architecture and Arts, Northwest A&F University, Xianyang 712100, China
2
College of Landscape Architecture, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21(12), 1636; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21121636
Submission received: 5 November 2024 / Accepted: 25 November 2024 / Published: 9 December 2024

1. Figure Legend

In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in the legend for Figure 5. There is a typo in the legend of Figure 5 (“ayer” instead of layer). The correct legend appears below.
“Single-layer grassland”.

2. Table Legends

In the original publication, there were three mistakes in the legends for Tables 3–5. The original table numbers have been adjusted as a result of the addition of new table elements. The correct legends appear below.
  • Table 9. Effects of professional background and perception method.
  • Table 10. Effects of gender and plant community type on physiological and psychological indicators.
  • Table 11. Effects of professional background and plant community type on physiological and psychological indicators.

3. Errors in Figures

In the original publication, there were six mistakes in Figures 5–10 as published. The standard deviation (sD) and standard error (sE) were not illustrated in the original figure. All figure legends should explain what the error bars represent. Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10 with corrections appear below.

4. Errors in Tables

In the original publication, there were six mistakes in Figures 5–10 as published. We have added tables. Including these statistical measures could enhance the rigor and clarity of our findings. Figures 5–10 correspond to Tables 3–8. The corrected Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8 appear below.

5. Text Correction

There was an error in the original publication. The descriptions contained herein are not adequately precise, and the meanings they convey are susceptible to misinterpretation.
Corrections were made to the Institutional Review Board Statement and Informed Consent Statement:
  • Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Northwest A&F University.
  • Informed Consent Statement: The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Northwest Agriculture & Forestry University Ethics Committee. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.

Reference

  1. Duan, Y.; Li, S. Effects of Plant Communities on Human Physiological Recovery and Emotional Reactions: A Comparative Onsite Survey and Photo Elicitation Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 5. Impact of onsite surveys on participant SCL indicators.
Figure 5. Impact of onsite surveys on participant SCL indicators.
Ijerph 21 01636 g005
Figure 6. Effect of photo elicitation on the SCL indicators of the participants.
Figure 6. Effect of photo elicitation on the SCL indicators of the participants.
Ijerph 21 01636 g006
Figure 7. Effect of onsite surveys on participant PA scores.
Figure 7. Effect of onsite surveys on participant PA scores.
Ijerph 21 01636 g007
Figure 8. Effect of onsite surveys on the NA scores of participants.
Figure 8. Effect of onsite surveys on the NA scores of participants.
Ijerph 21 01636 g008
Figure 9. Effect of photo elicitation on the PA scores of participants.
Figure 9. Effect of photo elicitation on the PA scores of participants.
Ijerph 21 01636 g009
Figure 10. Effect of photo elicitation on the NA scores of the participants.
Figure 10. Effect of photo elicitation on the NA scores of the participants.
Ijerph 21 01636 g010
Table 3. Impact of onsite surveys on participant SCL indicators.
Table 3. Impact of onsite surveys on participant SCL indicators.
StageTimeMean ± (SD)
Single-Layer GrasslandSingle-Layer WoodlandTree–Shrub–Grass Composite WoodlandTree–Grass Composite Woodland
The stress stage61.83 ± 3.591.29 ± 3.450.57 ± 3.360.73 ± 2.93
72.55 ± 3.631.88 ± 3.001.46 ± 3.061.73 ± 3.39
83.08 ± 3.301.89 ± 2.971.68 ± 2.850.86 ± 2.57
93.02 ± 3.181.89 ± 2.651.31 ± 2.862.45 ± 2.86
103.51 ± 3.442.30 ± 2.970.77 ± 3.112.16 ± 2.92
The immersion stage111.44 ± 3.130.90 ± 2.930.42 ± 2.390.92 ± 2.73
121.41 ± 2.291.16 ± 2.121.23 ± 2.421.35 ± 2.46
131.45 ± 2.310.77 ± 2.320.94 ± 1.580.33 ± 2.69
141.63 ± 3.251.36 ± 1.880.77 ± 2.472.02 ± 2.34
151.77 ± 3.841.76 ± 2.810.36 ± 3.301.52 ± 3.08
Table 4. Effect of photo elicitation on the SCL indicators of the participants.
Table 4. Effect of photo elicitation on the SCL indicators of the participants.
StageTimeMean ± (SD)
Single-Layer GrasslandSingle-Layer WoodlandTree–Shrub–Grass Composite WoodlandTree–Grass Composite Woodland
The stress stage60.20 ± 3.54−0.11 ± 3.400.01 ± 3.190.48 ± 2.40
72.97 ± 4.402.37 ± 2.972.46 ± 3.222.68 ± 3.36
82.85 ± 3.352.81 ± 3.552.78 ± 2.782.78 ± 2.93
93.43 ± 3.932.71 ± 2.993.03 ± 3.142.78 ± 2.83
103.81 ± 4.122.69 ± 2.802.89 ± 3.842.35 ± 3.21
The immersion stage111.75 ± 3.551.03 ± 2.871.07 ± 2.771.37 ± 3.07
121.73 ± 2.881.54 ± 2.421.36 ± 2.281.13 ± 2.31
131.81 ± 3.021.21 ± 2.571.45 ± 2.721.17 ± 2.19
142.44 ± 3.221.56 ± 3.081.65 ± 2.571.65 ± 2.90
152.19 ± 2.811.40 ± 2.441.63 ± 2.611.39 ± 2.64
Table 5. Effect of onsite surveys on participant PA scores.
Table 5. Effect of onsite surveys on participant PA scores.
StageMean ± (SD)
Single-Layer GrasslandSingle-Layer WoodlandTree–Shrub–Grass Composite WoodlandTree–Grass Composite Woodland
The stress stage−0.18 ± 2.27−0.50 ± 2.72−0.80 ± 2.90−1.18 ± 3.61
The immersion stage0.18 ± 2.28−3.85 ± 2.99−1.18 ± 3.20−1.68 ± 3.83
Table 6. Effect of onsite surveys on the NA scores of participants.
Table 6. Effect of onsite surveys on the NA scores of participants.
StageMean ± (SD)
Single-Layer GrasslandSingle-Layer WoodlandTree–Shrub–Grass Composite WoodlandTree–Grass Composite Woodland
The stress stage3.13 ± 4.681.83 ± 2.620.28 ± 1.580.88 ± 1.56
The immersion stage−1.4 ± 2.45−2.55 ± 3.34−2.90 ± 3.400.58 ± 1.75
Table 7. Effect of photo elicitation on the PA scores of participants.
Table 7. Effect of photo elicitation on the PA scores of participants.
StageMean ± (SD)
Single-Layer GrasslandSingle-Layer WoodlandTree–Shrub–Grass Composite WoodlandTree–Grass Composite Woodland
The stress stage−3.25 ± 5.41−0.08 ± 2.77−0.38 ± 2.62−1.80 ± 3.42
The immersion stage−1.50 ± 3.36−0.68 ± 2.720.53 ± 2.85−5.05 ± 3.99
Table 8. Effect of photo elicitation on the NA scores of the participants.
Table 8. Effect of photo elicitation on the NA scores of the participants.
StageMean ± (SD)
Single-Layer GrasslandSingle-Layer WoodlandTree–Shrub–Grass Composite WoodlandTree–Grass Composite Woodland
The stress stage−1.35 ± 3.502.65 ± 4.401.65 ± 3.791.58 ± 4.04
The immersion stage−4.75 ± 3.970.63 ± 3.030.88 ± 3.240.23 ± 4.55
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Duan, Y.; Li, S. Correction: Duan, Y.; Li, S. Effects of Plant Communities on Human Physiological Recovery and Emotional Reactions: A Comparative Onsite Survey and Photo Elicitation Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 721. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 1636. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21121636

AMA Style

Duan Y, Li S. Correction: Duan, Y.; Li, S. Effects of Plant Communities on Human Physiological Recovery and Emotional Reactions: A Comparative Onsite Survey and Photo Elicitation Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 721. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2024; 21(12):1636. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21121636

Chicago/Turabian Style

Duan, Yifan, and Shuhua Li. 2024. "Correction: Duan, Y.; Li, S. Effects of Plant Communities on Human Physiological Recovery and Emotional Reactions: A Comparative Onsite Survey and Photo Elicitation Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 721" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 21, no. 12: 1636. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21121636

APA Style

Duan, Y., & Li, S. (2024). Correction: Duan, Y.; Li, S. Effects of Plant Communities on Human Physiological Recovery and Emotional Reactions: A Comparative Onsite Survey and Photo Elicitation Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 721. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 21(12), 1636. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21121636

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop