Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Corrigendum: Use of crowdsourced online surveys to study the impact of architectural and design choices on wellbeing(Front. Sustain. Cities, (2022), 4, (780376), 10.3389/frsc.2022.780376)

  • Basma Altaf*
  • , Eva Bianchi*
  • , Isabella P. Douglas
  • , Kyle Douglas
  • , Brandon Byers
  • , Pablo E. Paredes
  • , Nicole M. Ardoin
  • , Hazel R. Markus
  • , Elizabeth L. Murnane
  • , Lucy Z. Bencharit
  • , James A. Landay
  • , Sarah L. Billington
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

In the published article, there was an error in Tables 4, 6, 8 as published. The effect sizes in our tables were mislabeled as “η2” (eta-squared) but should have been labelled as “ (Formula presented.) ” (generalized eta-squared). All instances have been replaced by “ (Formula presented.) ”. The corrected Tables 4, 6, 8 and their caption appear below. ANOVA and mixed ANOVA results for materials for all three dependent variables. aSome outliers were identified for environmental efficacy scores in the following studies: Study 2 (n = 4), Study 3 (n = 4), Study 4b (n = 4), Study 5 (n = 5). These were removed from the analysis for that specific dependent variable only. *p < 0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p < 0.001. ANOVA and mixed ANOVA results for light for all three dependent variables. aSome outliers were identified for environmental efficacy scores in the following studies: Study 2 (n = 4), Study 3 (n = 4), Study 4b (n = 4), Study 5 (n = 5). These were removed from the analysis for that specific dependent variable only. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. ANOVA and mixed ANOVA results for representation for all three dependent variables. aSome outliers were identified for environmental efficacy scores in the following studies: Study 2 (n = 4), Study 3 (n = 4), Study 4b (n = 4), Study 5 (n = 5). These were removed from the analysis for that specific dependent variable only. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. A correction has been made to Results Per Independent Variable, Paragraph 1, Page 7. This sentence previously stated: “Our results are organized for each independent variable with subsections for each dependent variable. The ANOVA results are reported using p-value (p), F ratio (F), degrees of freedom (df) and effect size (η2).” The corrected sentence appears below: “Our results are organized for each independent variable with subsections for each dependent variable. The ANOVA results are reported using p-value (p), F ratio (F), degrees of freedom (df), and effect size ((Formula presented.)).” The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

Original languageEnglish
Article number1458100
JournalFrontiers in Sustainable Cities
Volume6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2024
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2024 Altaf, Bianchi, Douglas, Douglas, Byers, Paredes, Ardoin, Markus, Murnane, Bencharit, Landay and Billington.

Keywords

  • design interventions
  • diversity
  • environmental efficacy
  • meta-analysis
  • natural light
  • natural materials
  • self-efficacy
  • sense of belonging

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
  • Urban Studies
  • Public Administration

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Corrigendum: Use of crowdsourced online surveys to study the impact of architectural and design choices on wellbeing(Front. Sustain. Cities, (2022), 4, (780376), 10.3389/frsc.2022.780376)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this