Correction: Wang et al. Life Cycle Environmental and Cost Performance of Prefabricated Buildings. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2609

The authors would like to make the following corrections to the published paper [1]. The changes are as follows:

1.

In the original paper, in Figure 1, the authors missed out a citation. Architectural Institute of Japan. Guidelines for LCA of Buildings: Evaluation Tools for Global Warming, Resource Consumption, and Waste Management; Architectural Institute of Japan: Tokyo, Japan, 2013” has been added in original referenced data. The citation [42] has now been inserted in Figure 1 caption; With this correction, the order of some references has been adjusted accordingly.

Original Figure 1:

Figure 1. The calculation system for the life cycle assessment (LCA).

Figure 1. The calculation system for the life cycle assessment (LCA).

Updated Figure 1:

Figure 1. The calculation system for the life cycle assessment (LCA) [42].

Figure 1. The calculation system for the life cycle assessment (LCA) [42].

2.

The labeling in Figure 2 of this article is incorrect, as the identifiers for TPB (Traditional Public Building) and PPB (Prefabricated Public Building) have been swapped. However, the descriptions in the main text are accurate.

Original Figure 2:

Figure 2. Comparison of input resource between a prefabricated public building (PPB) and a TPB.

Figure 2. Comparison of input resource between a prefabricated public building (PPB) and a TPB.

Updated Figure 2:

Figure 2. Comparison of input resources between a prefabricated public building (PPB) and a TPB.

Figure 2. Comparison of input resources between a prefabricated public building (PPB) and a TPB.

The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.