Correction: Park use patterns and park satisfaction before and after citywide park renovations in low-income New York City neighborhoods
Rachel L. Thompson, Katarzyna E. Wyka, Kelly R. Evenson, Lorna E. Thorpe, Glen D. Johnson, Brian T. Pavilonis, Terry T.-K. Huang
Abstract
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsUrban Green Space and Health · Place Attachment and Urban Studies · Recreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Correction to: Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-025-07264-3, published online 02 July 2025
The original version of this Article contained errors in Table 1 and Supplementary Table S1, where a coding error resulted in incorrect mean and standard deviation values for the continuous BMI measures. It did not affect the BMI category variable, which was used in adjusted and stratified models.
The original Table 1 and accompanying legend appear below.
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of sampled residents living within 0.3 miles of an intervention or control park, pre- and post-renovation.Overall samplePre-renovation by groupPost-renovation by groupPre-renovation N = 890^a^Post-renovation N = 330^a^p-value^b^Intervention N = 545^a^Control N = 345^a^p-value^b^Intervention N = 201^a^Control N = 129^a^p-value^b^Sex0.3000.1200.400 Female715 (81%)267 (83%)428 (79%)287 (83%)159 (82%)108 (86%) Male172 (19%)53 (17%)114 (21%)58 (17%)35 (18%)18 (14%) (Missing)3103073Age38 (12)41 (13) ** < 0.001** 38 (13)38 (11)0.60041 (12)42 (14)0.800Age category 0.002 0.500 0.070 18–34 y394 (45%)104 (34%)241 (45%)153 (45%)59 (32%)45 (37%) 35–49 y305 (35%)125 (41%)179 (34%)126 (37%)85 (46%)40 (33%) 50–78 y172 (20%)79 (26%)110 (21%)62 (18%)42 (23%)37 (30%) (Missing)1922154157Body mass index (BMI)31 (31)30 (8)0.40031 (40)30 (7)0.70030 (8)30 (7)0.800BMI category 0.077
0.060 0.400 Healthy (BMI < 25 kg/m^2^)206 (24%)89 (30%)132 (26%)74 (22%)58 (33%)31 (26%) Overweight (BMI 25–29 kg/m^2^)269 (32%)78 (27%)170 (33%)99 (29%)43 (25%)35 (30%) Obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m^2^)376 (44%)125 (43%)209 (41%)167 (49%)73 (42%)52 (44%) (Missing)39383452711Race/ethnicity0.400 > 0.9000.500 Latino/a408 (47%)130 (42%)247 (47%)161 (47%)74 (40%)56 (46%) Non-Latino/a Black326 (37%)123 (40%)198 (38%)128 (37%)79 (43%)44 (36%) Other or multiracial136 (16%)53 (17%)83 (16%)53 (15%)32 (17%)21 (17%) (Missing)2024173168Annual household income0.3000.300 0.082 20,000426 (51%)157 (55%)253 (50%)173 (53%)86 (50%)71 (61%) (Missing)544234203012Education0.7000.5000.800 High school graduate or less432 (50%)134 (49%)266 (51%)166 (48%)76 (48%)58 (50%) Some college or more435 (50%)142 (51%)258 (49%)177 (52%)83 (52%)59 (50%) (Missing)23542124212Employment status0.3000.2000.140 Employed or self-employed453 (51%)157 (48%)268 (50%)185 (54%)102 (51%)55 (43%) Not employed429 (49%)172 (52%)272 (50%)157 (46%)98 (49%)74 (57%) (Missing)815310Public housing0.600 ** < 0.001**
0.049 Non-NYCHA resident447 (50%)157 (49%)299 (55%)148 (43%)104 (53%)53 (42%) NYCHA resident440 (50%)164 (51%)243 (45%)197 (57%)91 (47%)73 (58%) (Missing)393063Marital status0.600 0.032 0.900 Never married446 (50%)175 (53%)283 (52%)163 (48%)107 (54%)68 (53%) Married265 (30%)89 (27%)145 (27%)120 (35%)55 (28%)34 (26%) Divorced, separated, or widowed173 (20%)64 (20%)113 (21%)60 (17%)37 (19%)27 (21%) (Missing)624220Children in household0.400 0.002 0.400 No children190 (22%)79 (24%)135 (25%)55 (16%)45 (22%)34 (27%) One or more children686 (78%)250 (76%)402 (75%)284 (84%)156 (78%)94 (73%)(Missing)1418601BMI body mass index, NYCHA New York City housing authority, SD standard deviation.^a^n (%); Mean (SD).^b^Pearson’s Chi-squared test; Welch Two Sample t-test; significant (p < 0.05) and marginally significant (0.05 < p < 0.1) p-values are bolded.
Supplementary Information Table S1 contained the same error. The original Table S1 and accompanying legend appear below.
Table S1Sociodemographic characteristics of survey respondents pre- and post-renovation using multiply imputed data.Overall samplePre-renovation by groupPost-renovation by groupPre-renovation N = 890^a^Post-renovation N = 330^a^p value^b^Intervention N = 545^a^Control N = 345^a^p value^b^Intervention N = 201^a^Control N = 129^a^p value^b^Sex (1.1% Imputed)0.2000.1300.400 Female718 (81%)277 (84%)431 (79%)287 (83%)166 (83%)111 (86%) Male172 (19%)53 (16%)114 (21%)58 (17%)35 (17%)18 (14%)Age (3.4% imputed)38 (12)41 (13) <0.001 38 (13)38 (11)0.60041 (12)41 (14)0.900Age category 0.005 0.700 0.063 18–34y395 (44%)113 (34%)242 (44%)153 (44%)64 (32%)49 (38%) 35–49y322 (36%)136 (41%)193 (35%)129 (37%)93 (46%)43 (33%) 50–78y173 (19%)81 (25%)110 (20%)63 (18%)44 (22%)37 (29%)Body mass index (BMI) (6.3% imputed)31 (30)30 (7)0.50031 (38)30 (7)0.70030 (8)30 (7)>0.900BMI category0.200 0.054 0.300 Healthy (BMI <25 kg/m^2^)211 (24%)91 (28%)136 (25%)75 (22%)60 (30%)31 (24%) Overweight (BMI 25-29 kg/m^2^)288 (32%)92 (28%)187 (34%)101 (29%)51 (25%)41 (32%) Obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m^2^)391 (44%)147 (45%)222 (41%)169 (49%)90 (45%)57 (44%)Race/ethnicity (3.6% imputed)0.300>0.9000.500 Latino/a417 (47%)139 (42%)256 (47%)161 (47%)80 (40%)59 (46%) Non-Latino/a black336 (38%)138 (42%)206 (38%)130 (38%)89 (44%)49 (38%) Other or multiracial137 (15%)53 (16%)83 (15%)54 (16%)32 (16%)21 (16%)Annual household income (7.9% imputed)0.2000.300 0.039 20,000461 (52%)184 (56%)274 (50%)187 (54%)103 (51%)81 (63%)Education (6.3% imputed)0.7000.4000.800 High school graduate or less446 (50%)161 (49%)279 (51%)167 (48%)99 (49%)62 (48%) Some college or more444 (50%)169 (51%)266 (49%)178 (52%)102 (51%)67 (52%)Employment status (0.7% imputed)0.3000.2000.130 Employed or self-employed455 (51%)158 (48%)269 (49%)186 (54%)103 (51%)55 (43%) Not employed435 (49%)172 (52%)276 (51%)159 (46%)98 (49%)74 (57%)Public housing (1.0% imputed)0.800 <0.001
0.049 Non-NYCHA resident448 (50%)163 (49%)300 (55%)148 (43%)108 (54%)55 (43%) NYCHA resident442 (50%)167 (51%)245 (45%)197 (57%)93 (46%)74 (57%)Marital status (0.7% imputed)0.500 0.033 0.900 Never married448 (50%)177 (54%)284 (52%)164 (48%)109 (54%)68 (53%) Married268 (30%)89 (27%)147 (27%)121 (35%)55 (27%)34 (26%) Divorced, separated, or widowed174 (20%)64 (19%)114 (21%)60 (17%)37 (18%)27 (21%)Children in household (1.2% imputed)0.400 0.003 0.300 No children195 (22%)80 (24%)137 (25%)58 (17%)45 (22%)35 (27%) One or more children695 (78%)250 (76%)408 (75%)287 (83%)156 (78%)94 (73%)^a^n (%); Mean (SD)^b^Pearson's chi-squared test; Welch two sample t test; significant (p < 0.05) and marginally significant (0.05 < p < 0.1) p-values are boldedThis table summarizes all imputed and non-imputed sociodemographic characteristics, such that for imputed cells the most commonly imputed value across the 25 imputed datasets was used. BMI body mass index, NYCHA New York City Housing Authority, SD standard deviation
As the result, in the Results section, under the subheading ‘Sociodemographic characteristics of residents living near study parks’,
“There were marginally significant differences in the composition of the intervention and control samples by BMI category (pre-renovation only), age category (post-renovation only), and annual household income (post-renovation only).”
now reads:
“There were marginally significant differences in the composition of the intervention and control samples by BMI category and continuous BMI (pre-renovation only), age category (post-renovation only), and annual household income (post-renovation only).”
Additionally, Figures 1 and 2 legends incorrectly implied that the presented means and 95% confidence intervals were adjusted for covariates. The means and 95% confidence intervals in the figures were unadjusted. However, the asterisks denoting statistical significance were reflective of DID estimators that were adjusted for covariates.
As a result, in Figure 1 legend,
“Mean park use measures among adult residents living near study parks before and after CPI park renovations. Means by intervention group (green square = intervention, grey circle = control) and 95% confidence intervals (vertical bars) were estimated using linear GEE models that included variables for time (pre-renovation vs. post-renovation), intervention group (renovated vs. control parks), and an interaction between time and intervention group (the DID estimator), and additionally adjusted for age group, BMI category, annual household income, public housing, marital status, and children in household. An asterisk denotes a significant (p < 0.05) DID estimator. BMI body mass index, CPI community parks initiative, DID difference-in-differences, GEE generalized estimating equations.”
now reads:
“Mean park use measures among adult residents living near study parks before and after CPI park renovations. Means by intervention group (green square = intervention, grey circle = control) and 95% confidence intervals (vertical bars) were estimated using linear GEE models that included variables for time (pre-renovation vs. post-renovation), intervention group (renovated vs. control parks), and an interaction between time and intervention group (the DID estimator). An asterisk denotes a significant (p < 0.05) DID estimator after adjusting for age group, BMI category, annual household income, public housing, marital status, and children in household. BMI body mass index, CPI community parks initiative, DID difference-in-differences, GEE generalized estimating equations.”
In Figure 2 legend,
“Mean park satisfaction measures among adult residents living near study parks before and after CPI park renovations. Means by intervention group (green square = intervention, grey circle = control) and 95% confidence intervals (vertical bars) were estimated using linear GEE models that included variables for time (pre-renovation vs. post-renovation), intervention group (renovated vs. control parks), and an interaction between time and intervention group (the DID estimator), and additionally adjusted for age group, BMI category, annual household income, public housing, marital status, and children in household. An asterisk denotes a significant (p < 0.05) DID estimator. BMI body mass index, CPI community parks initiative, DID difference-in-differences, GEE generalized estimating equations.”
now reads:
“Mean park satisfaction measures among adult residents living near study parks before and after CPI park renovations. Means by intervention group (green square = intervention, grey circle = control) and 95% confidence intervals (vertical bars) were estimated using linear GEE models that included variables for time (pre-renovation vs. post-renovation), intervention group (renovated vs. control parks), and an interaction between time and intervention group (the DID estimator). An asterisk denotes a significant (p < 0.05) DID estimator after adjusting for age group, BMI category, annual household income, public housing, marital status, and children in household. BMI body mass index, CPI community parks initiative, DID difference-in-differences, GEE generalized estimating equations.”
The original Article and accompanying Supplementary Information file have been corrected.
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Information.