Error in Figure
In the original publication [1], figures containing incorrect citation order numbers were used for publication by mistake.
- (1)
- The correct Figure 5 appears below.
Figure 5. Overview of all studies with assigned application values for environmental conservation and ULP. See the text for details.
- (2)
- The correct Figure 7 appears below.
Figure 7. Reported physical parameters per organism group. See the main text for details on categories.
- (3)
- The correct Figure 8 appears below.
Figure 8. (a) Reported physical parameters per organism group for different (single) CMHs and FLs. See the main text for details on categories. (b) Reported physical parameters per organism group for different (single) LED light sources. See the main text for details on categories. (c) Reported physical parameters per organism group for different (single) HPSs. See the main text for details on categories.
- (4)
- The correct Figure 9 appears below.
Figure 9. Reported physical parameters per organism group for different (multiple) light sources. See the main text for details on categories.
The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.
Reference
- Pérez Vega, C.; Zielinska-Dabkowska, K.M.; Schroer, S.; Jechow, A.; Hölker, F. A Systematic Review for Establishing Relevant Environmental Parameters for Urban Lighting: Translating Research into Practice. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).