Correction: Seghetto et al. Virtual Reality as a Tool for Enhancing Understanding of Tactical Urbanism. Architecture 2025, 5, 26

In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in Figure 7 as published. Due to an oversight, the data were reported as a frequency distribution instead of as mean values. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused to readers by these changes. The errors do not significantly change the conclusions of the paper, making the observed effect clearer for the reader. The corrected Figure 7 and updated legend appear below.

Marco Boffi, Nicola Rainisio, Gabriele Stancato, and Barbara Ester Adele Piga were not included as authors in the original publication. The corrected Author Contributions statement appears here.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.S., R.L., F.L., M.B., and B.E.A.P.; methodology, B.E.A.P., M.B., G.S., and N.R.; software: G.S.; investigation, I.S.; data curation, G.S.; formal analysis, G.S.; visualization: G.S. and I.S.; writing—original draft preparation, I.S.; writing—review and editing, R.L., F.L., B.E.A.P., and M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

In order to facilitate readers’ better understanding, some language descriptions and grammar as well as the layout of some chapters have been modified. The authors regret that some aspects concerning the integration of the VR simulation and psychological aspects were not fully defined; this might hinder the comprehension of the results shown in the updated figure.

A correction has been made to the “1. Introduction” section, from the fourth paragraph until the end of the section. The updated text should read as follows:

Fourth paragraph: “The same approach of experiential walk can be adopted with lay people to assess their subjective experience by applying the exp-EIA© (experiential-Environmental Impact Assessment) method, protocol, and tools [12,13,14,15]. This innovative approach integrates advanced technology into urban studies, leveraging questionnaires to gather data on participants’ psychological reactions, which are vital for describing and interpreting lived experiences. Combined with VR resources, the exp-EIA© methodology aims to enhance the development of tactical urbanism proposals, empowering designers to create environments that meet users’ needs and expectations.” “We applied this methodology both in a real-world environment and in a VR simulation, faithfully representing the same scenario. This approach allowed us to compare the results and validate the use of VR as a reliable simulation of the real environment. Consequently, it enables an assessment of spatial experiences and supports the evaluation of design proposals prior to their actual realization.”

Fifth paragraph: Data collected through questionnaires captured participants’ reactions and experiences, providing a detailed evaluation of these interventions. By examining these reactions, the study offers valuable insights into the integration of urban design with digital technologies, delivering a comprehensive understanding of the impact these interventions have on both physical and virtual spaces, thereby contributing to the investigation of the ecological validity of VR applications for tactical urbanism interventions.

Sixth paragraph: (b) a case study examining the response equivalence between virtual and real environments, conducted using an actual tactical urbanism intervention recreated in VR photography [12,16];

A correction has been made to the “2. Review of the Literature” section, from the fifth paragraph until the end of the section. The updated text should read as follows:

Fifth paragraph: Building on the principles established by Adler and Tanner, Veríssimo, and Merleau-Ponty [5,17,18], perception is understood as a process shaped by embodied engagement with the environment, in which sensory input and cognitive interpretation unfold simultaneously in a structured and dynamic interplay.

Sixth paragraph: Applying these principles is essential for designing and understanding perceptible spaces, intended as the relationship between social and physical dimensions of space that enable users to easily interact with their environment and facilitate orientation.

Eighth paragraph: Thus, it is understood that VR is characterized by the creation of fully digital environments able to simulate real-world scenarios, creating environments that can be explored in potential ways, regardless of the actual time and space. These virtual environments are not constrained by real-world locations or times; they have the potential to simulate specific moments and places, offering multiple possibilities [3].

Ninth paragraph: The ability to explore virtual environments in an immersive way is a crucial aspect for psychological benefits related to the environment [22], facilitating the understanding of the impacts and benefits of a project.

A correction has been made to the “3. Case Study: An Experiment Comparing Physical and Virtual Experiences” section, “3.1. Methods” in the first paragraph and seventh paragraph. The updated text should read as follows:

First paragraph: Our case study is grounded in the exp-EIA©—experiential-Environmental Impact Assessment methodology [12,13,14,15]. This method is operationalized through a suite of ad hoc tools comprising the exp-EIA© Ecosystem, which integrates physical and digital components. The ecosystem leverages Mixed Reality (XR) technologies as an envisioning tool to enhance stakeholder engagement and co-design in urban development projects. For instance, in Augmented Reality (AR), overlays virtual 3D models onto real-world environments, while VR immerses users in entirely virtual scenarios. These applications enable citizens and decision-makers to explore proposed urban transformations from a first-person perspective, fostering an interactive and engaging co-design process. Simultaneously, they facilitate the collection of psychological and behavioral data, providing insights into users’ experiences. This direct experience allows users to navigate and react to future developments from individual perspectives, promoting inclusivity and informed decision-making. In our study, we adapted this approach to virtual reality (VR) using pannable 360° images of different subjective views of the parklet. While the media differed, the methodology remained consistent in the physical and virtual environments, offering an immersive platform for stakeholders to explore and evaluate urban proposals in a realistic virtual environment.

Seventh paragraph: As part of the experimental process outlined above, participants were randomly assigned to a group starting with the physical or virtual environment, followed by the second type of environment, following the structured sequence of viewpoints established by the screening protocol.

A correction has been made to the “3. Case Study: An Experiment Comparing Physical and Virtual Experiences” section, “3.2. Questionnaire Design and Data Collection” sub-section, from Paragraph number 1 until the end of the section. The updated text should read as follows:

First paragraph: The exp-EIA© questionnaire was employed to gather data on participants’ reactions to the intervention. Comparing these results with data gathered on-site using the same questionnaire facilitated the assessment of the extent to which the VR experience accurately represented the physical intervention. Designed to allow for comparative analysis, the questionnaire administered to 65 participants was repeated after each viewpoint observation; after the data cleaning process, the valid collected responses were 185 for the Real Environment condition (64 participants), and 181 for the Virtual Environment condition (63 participants). The questionnaire was divided into two sections.

Third paragraph: emotional reaction—captured using Russell’s circumplex model of affect [36]. Data were collected using an affective slider, separately assessing valence and arousal. Participants’ emotions were mapped on a Cartesian plane, where the horizontal axis measured valence (ranging from unpleasant to pleasant) and the vertical axis measured arousal (ranging from deactivation to activation). Figure 5 depicts Russell’s circumplex model of affect.

Fourth paragraph: environmental preference—assessed referring to Kaplan’s preference matrix [37] and including four items addressing coherence, complexity, legibility, and mystery. Participants rated their agreement with statements related to these aspects using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

A correction has been made to the “4. Results” section, from Paragraph number 1 until the end of the section. The updated text should read as follows:

Second paragraph: Participants’ responses regarding emotional reaction revealed a general trend of pleasant and slightly activating reactions to the intervention.

Third paragraph: The environmental preference results demonstrate positive outcomes across all the evaluated aspects, with minimal variations between the two settings and among the three POVs. The average values ranged from 73.1% to 88.3%, indicating substantial appreciation of the environment. Values for Ease of Understanding (average of coherence and legibility) are consistently higher than those for Nudging Exploration (average of complexity and mystery), a pattern stable across all POVs in both real and virtual conditions. This suggests participants found the environment easily comprehensible, facilitating orientation and interaction with the surroundings. Although less pronounced, the environment also stimulated participants’ curiosity to explore further. Reactions were similar across all POVs, indicating the experience remains consistent regardless of viewpoint. Values for each POV are closely matched between real and virtual conditions, with virtual evaluations generally yielding higher values, except for Nudging Exploration at POV 2.

Fourth paragraph: In summary, the findings highlight a high level of preference across all aspects, with the virtual environment showing slightly better performance in most of the POVs and preference factors. Both environments were well-received for their intelligibility and ability to foster an intriguing atmosphere. Figure 7 provides a clear visual representation of these findings.

Tenth paragraph: In terms of environmental preference, positive results were reported across coherence, complexity, legibility, and mystery in both environments, indicating that the participants found the spaces harmonious, engaging, and worth exploring in both formats.

In light of the previous text integration, the original publication did not cite the following articles:

Citations 12–16 have now been inserted in the “1. Introduction” section, Paragraphs 4 and 6, and should read as follows:

Fourth paragraph: Previous research [10,11,12] explored the experiential walk methodology for urban design, aimed at enhancing designers’ sensory awareness and ability to consider multi-sensory, dynamic environmental conditions through direct experience, self-reflection, and data representation, ultimately uncovering and communicating the essence and potential of places. The same approach of experiential walk can be adopted with lay people to assess their subjective experience by applying the exp-EIA© (experiential-Environmental Impact Assessment) method, protocol, and tools [12,13,14,15].

Sixth paragraph: (b) a case study examining the response equivalence between virtual and real environments, conducted using an actual tactical urbanism intervention recreated in VR photography [12,16];

Citation 22 has now been inserted in the “2. Review of the Literature” section, Paragraph number 9, and should read as follows:

Ninth paragraph: The ability to explore virtual environments in an immersive way is a crucial aspect for psychological benefits related to the environment [22], facilitating the understanding of the impacts and benefits of a project.

Citations 12,13,14,15 have now been inserted in “3. Case Study: An Experiment Comparing Physical and Virtual Experiences” section, “3.1. Methods” sub-section, Paragraph number 1, and should read as follows:

First paragraph: Our case study is grounded in the exp-EIA©—experiential-Environmental Impact Assessment methodology [12,13,14,15].

Citation 37 has now been inserted in “3. Case Study: An Experiment Comparing Physical and Virtual Experiences” section, “3.1. Questionnaire Design and Data Collection” sub-section, Paragraph number 4, and should read as follows:

Fourth paragraph: environmental preference—assessed referring to Kaplan’s preference matrix [37] and including four items addressing spatial coherence, complexity, legibility, and mystery.

The exp-EIA© (experiential-Environmental Impact Assessment) has been developed by B.E.A.P., M.B., N.R., G.S. at Politecnico di Milano and Università degli Studi di Milano and is a patented method nationally and internationally [PATENT 1: Italian Publication Number 102021000017168-30/06/2021; International Publication Number WO 2023/275679 A1-5.1.2023; PATENT 2: Italian Patent Publication Number 102024000011161-16.5.2024\COPYRIGHT 1: N. D000020125-16.06.2023; COPYRIGHT 2 N. 130516-25.02.2021; COPYRIGHT 3 N. 123453-06.05.2020].

With previous corrections, the order of some references has been adjusted accordingly.

The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. All corrections were approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.