TY - JOUR
T1 - Corrigendum to “The circularity gap of nations
T2 - A multiregional analysis of waste generation, recovery, and stock depletion in 2011” (Resources, Conservation & Recycling (2019) 151, (S0921344919303581), (10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104452))
AU - Aguilar-Hernandez, Glenn A.
AU - Sigüenza-Sanchez, Carlos Pablo
AU - Donati, Franco
AU - Merciai, Stefano
AU - Schmidt, Jannick
AU - Rodrigues, João F.D.
AU - Tukker, Arnold
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 The Author(s)
PY - 2020/3
Y1 - 2020/3
N2 - The authors regret to inform the reader that the numerical values of the variable Circularity Gap Index (CGI) in Table 1 of the original publication were incorrect and should appear as reported in Table 1 of the current document. CGI is the fraction (in %) “of material wastes passed through waste treatment sectors, [that] were not reintroduced into the economy as recovered materials”. In the original version the global CGI was reported as 19 % while in the updated version it is 64 %. Table 1 Traditional material gap represented as 100 – Circularity Index (CI), and circularity gap index (CGI) for the world, and selected regions and countries in 2011. [Table presented] Moreover, we wrote as an example: “the traditional approach for material gap indicates that Japan generated less output of waste per unit of total material input (100 – CI = 92 %) compared to China (100 – CI = 97 %). In contrast, using the new CGI, our findings show that the fraction of residual waste generated by waste treatment activities in China (CGI = 7 %) was more than 3 times smaller than in Japan (CGI = 26 %).” Instead, we use an updated example in accordance to the corrected CGI: “the traditional approach for material gap indicates that Japan generated less output of waste per unit of total material input (100 – CI = 92 %) compared to China (100 – CI = 97 %). In contrast, using the new CGI, our findings show that the fraction of residual waste generated by waste treatment activities in China (CGI = 58 %) was larger than in Japan (CGI = 54 %).” We would like to apologize for any inconvenience and state that the changes concerning Table 1 reported here do not affect the scientific conclusions of the manuscript. We also thank Edgar Towa from the Université Libre de Bruxelles for uncovering our error. Supplementary information Please refers to the updated version of “analysis.xlsx” file (available in: https://github.com/aguilarga/cgn_supplementary_material).
AB - The authors regret to inform the reader that the numerical values of the variable Circularity Gap Index (CGI) in Table 1 of the original publication were incorrect and should appear as reported in Table 1 of the current document. CGI is the fraction (in %) “of material wastes passed through waste treatment sectors, [that] were not reintroduced into the economy as recovered materials”. In the original version the global CGI was reported as 19 % while in the updated version it is 64 %. Table 1 Traditional material gap represented as 100 – Circularity Index (CI), and circularity gap index (CGI) for the world, and selected regions and countries in 2011. [Table presented] Moreover, we wrote as an example: “the traditional approach for material gap indicates that Japan generated less output of waste per unit of total material input (100 – CI = 92 %) compared to China (100 – CI = 97 %). In contrast, using the new CGI, our findings show that the fraction of residual waste generated by waste treatment activities in China (CGI = 7 %) was more than 3 times smaller than in Japan (CGI = 26 %).” Instead, we use an updated example in accordance to the corrected CGI: “the traditional approach for material gap indicates that Japan generated less output of waste per unit of total material input (100 – CI = 92 %) compared to China (100 – CI = 97 %). In contrast, using the new CGI, our findings show that the fraction of residual waste generated by waste treatment activities in China (CGI = 58 %) was larger than in Japan (CGI = 54 %).” We would like to apologize for any inconvenience and state that the changes concerning Table 1 reported here do not affect the scientific conclusions of the manuscript. We also thank Edgar Towa from the Université Libre de Bruxelles for uncovering our error. Supplementary information Please refers to the updated version of “analysis.xlsx” file (available in: https://github.com/aguilarga/cgn_supplementary_material).
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075549284&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104604
DO - 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104604
M3 - Comment/debate
AN - SCOPUS:85075549284
SN - 0921-3449
VL - 154
JO - Resources, Conservation and Recycling
JF - Resources, Conservation and Recycling
M1 - 104604
ER -