Advertisement

Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 367–369 | Cite as

Correction to: Allocation of risk and benefits—distributional justices in mountain hazard management

  • Thomas Thaler
  • Andreas Zischg
  • Margreth Keiler
  • Sven Fuchs
Open Access
Correction
  • 336 Downloads

Correction to: Reg Environ Change (2017)

 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1229-y

The article “Allocation of risk and benefits—distributional justices in mountain hazard management”, written by Thomas Thaler, Andreas Zischg, Margreth Keiler and Sven Fuchs was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on December 06, 2017 without open access.

With the author(s)' decision to opt for Open Choice the copyright of the article changed on December 2017 to © The Author(s) 2017 and the article is forthwith distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Also in the published online version, north arrows were missing from the figures. Corrected and updated images are shown below.

Fig. 1

The actual state of exposure to mountain hazards and the starting point of the experimental study for the policy impact analysis. a The share of exposed buildings to the total number of buildings in the administrative units of the local governments in Austria. b The share of the exposed building values to the total building values. The highest shares are found in the central and western parts of the country (especially in the federal states Salzburg, Tyrol, and Vorarlberg). c The spatial distribution of the ratio of average building values. Local governments with an average building value of exposed buildings less than the average building value within the areal unit are preferably located in rural and remote areas. In d, the absolute numbers of exposed buildings are shown (quantiles)

Fig. 2

Sum of projects invested in local governments following a the utilitarianism policy framework for investments in risk reduction measures in the period 2016–2045 in Austria and b, c, d the Rawlsians policy framework in the period 2016–2045 in Austria

Fig. 3

Reconstruction values of buildings exposed to mountain hazards in Austria

The original article has been corrected.

Supplementary material

10113_2017_1274_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 14 kb)

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Thaler
    • 1
  • Andreas Zischg
    • 2
    • 3
  • Margreth Keiler
    • 2
    • 4
  • Sven Fuchs
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Mountain Risk EngineeringUniversity of Natural Resources and Life SciencesViennaAustria
  2. 2.Mobiliar Laboratory for Natural Risks, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, Institute of GeographyUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.School of Geographical SciencesUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  4. 4.Institute of GeographyUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations