In Calvo Robledo et al. (2020), the authors would like to correct the following errors.

• In Abstract section, the values and terms in the seventh sentence should have been ‘€172,942’ instead of ‘€91,409’ and ‘conservation (€115,462) and agricultural (€66,210)’ instead of ‘agricultural (€68,504) and conservation (€48,556)’. The correct sentence should read as:

Results indicated that the compromise scenario provided the greatest annual value (€172,942), mainly due to its potential visitors, surpassing both conservation (€115,462) and agricultural (€66,210) scenarios.

• In Table 5 on page 1011, the price values of ‘Climate regulation services’ and ‘Total (€/year)’ under ‘Conservation’, ‘Compromise’ and ‘Agricultural’ rows should have been ‘€91,994’, ‘€112,108’, ‘€‐3,155’ and ‘€115,461.8’, ‘€172,942.34’, ‘€66,209.37’, respectively. Below is the correct table.

Table 5. Comparison of monetary value (annual value) from ES considering three alternative scenarios for Soto de Pajares.

	Conservation	Compromise	Agricultural
Agricultural production	€23,467.80	€28,067.34	€69,364.37
Climate regulation services	€91,994	€112,108	€‐3,155
Recreation services	€0	€32,767	€0
Total (€/year)	€115,461.8	€172,942.34	€66,209.37

• On page 1012, the price values in the third and fourth sentences of the ‘Climate Change Mitigation’ subsection should have been ‘€112,108’, ‘€91,994’ and ‘€3,155’. The correct sentences should read as:

This gave an annual value in the compromise scenario of €112,108, and in the conservation scenario of €91,994. The net value of both of these scenarios compared with the agricultural scenario would be increased by €3,155, which is the negative value that applies to the emissions in this scenario.

• On page 1012, the price values and the terms ‘conservation’ and ‘agricultural’ were incorrectly used in the second sentence of ‘Comparison of Alternative Scenarios’ subsection. The correct sentence should read as:

This scenario provides a net annual value of €57,480 compared to the conservation scenario; which in turn provided a net annual value of €49,252 compared to the agricultural scenario (Table 5).

The authors apologize for these errors.

中文翻译：

---

更正

在Calvo Robledo等人。（2020），作者希望纠正以下错误。

• 在摘要部分，第七句中的值和术语应为“ 172,942欧元”，而不是“ 91,409欧元”，“保护性（115,462欧元）和农业（66,210欧元）”，而不是“农业（68,504欧元）和保护（ 48,556欧元）”。正确的句子应为：

结果表明，折中方案提供的年价值最高（172,942欧元），这主要是由于其潜在的访问者，超过了保护方案（115,462欧元）和农业方案（66,210欧元）。

• 在第1011页的表5中，“保护”，“妥协”和“农业”行下的“气候调节服务”和“总计（€/年）”的价格应分别为“ 91,994欧元”，“ 112,108欧元” ，“€3,155”和“€115,461.8”，“€172,942.34”，“€66,209.37”。下面是正确的表。

表5.考虑了Soto de Pajares的三种替代方案的ES的货币价值（年价值）的比较。

	保护	妥协	农业类
农业生产	€23,467.80	€28,067.34	€69,364.37
气候调节服务	€91,994	€112,108	3,155欧元
康乐服务	€0	€32,767	€0
总计（€/年）	€115,461.8	€172,942.34	€66,209.37

• 在第1012页上，“缓解气候变化”小节的第三和第四句中的价格应该是“ 112,108欧元”，“ 91,994欧元”和“ 3,155欧元”。正确的句子应为：

在折衷方案下的年度价值为112,108欧元，在保护方案下的年度价值为91,994欧元。与农业情景相比，这两种情景的净值都将增加€3,155，这是适用于此情景中排放的负值。

• 在第1012页上，“替代方案比较”的第二句中错误地使用了价格值和术语“保护”和“农业”。正确的句子应为：

与保护情景相比，该情景的年净值为57,480欧元；与农业情景相比，则净年度价值为49,252欧元（表5）。

作者为这些错误表示歉意。