Ocean & Coastal Management 109 (2015) 17e28

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

A novel hybrid MCDM approach for offshore wind farm site selection:
A case study of Iran
Abdolvahhab Fetanat a, *, Ehsan Khorasaninejad b
a
Department of Electrical Engineering, Behbahan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Behbahan, Iran
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Behbahan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Behbahan, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The multi criteria decision making (MCDM) has been applied in Integrated Energy Planning (IEP) and
Received 11 October 2014 Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) frameworks. In this paper, a novel hybrid MCDM approach based
Received in revised form on the fuzzy analytic network process (ANP), fuzzy decision making trail and evaluation laboratory
10 February 2015
(DEMATEL) and fuzzy elimination and choice expressing the reality (ELECTRE) methodologies is applied
Accepted 15 February 2015
Available online 2 March 2015
to assist in the site selection of offshore wind farm (OWF) as the renewable energy in the IEP and the ICM
frameworks. The aim of this study is to find the best site selection of offshore wind farm for four sites
(alternatives) in Bandar Deylam on the Persian Gulf in southwest of Iran. Six criteria (depths and heights,
Keywords:
Fuzzy ANP
environmental issues, proximity to facilities, economic aspects, resource technical levels and culture) and
Fuzzy DEMATEL the related sub-criteria are considered to select proper sites for power station of OWF. The fuzzy ANP
Fuzzy ELECTRE method is employed for standpoints of the site selection (goal) subject to the criteria and is performed
Multi criteria decision making the criteria subject to the sub-criteria. In addition, due to considering the influences of the criterion to
Offshore wind farm another criterion, the fuzzy DEMATEL is employed in criteria and sub-criteria sections. Moreover, the
fuzzy ELECTRE is applied to calculate the decision making matrices of sub-criteria to alternatives. The
results show that the alternative A3 is the best site of OWF for Bandar Deylam. Then A2, A4 are the best
alternatives and finally alternative A1 is the worst site. Also, a sensitivity analysis is performed to
investigate the robustness of the outcomes of decision making by changing the priorities of the criteria.
The results indicate the robustness of this method when the experts’ opinions subject to the criteria
change. The evaluation criteria and this methodology could be applied to other coastal cities for pro-
moting the progress of ICM towards the goal of sustainability.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Off the coast of many countries lies a significant wind resource.
A number of wind turbines as Offshore Wind Farm (OWF) have
already been installed in offshore locations in order to gain wind
power as renewable energy. The site location decisions are used in
any field of the facility establishment and management like the
Integrated Coastal Management (ICM). The ICM framework has
been increasingly adopted in coastal cities of Iran. The multi criteria
decision making (MCDM) has been applied in Integrated Energy
Planning (IEP) and ICM frameworks. The correlations between ICM
governance, coastal environmental, socioeconomic sustainability
and IEP are analyzed using MCDM.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: av-fetanat@behbahaniau.ac.ir (A. Fetanat).
Despite different definitions, IEP and ICM are often seen as two
parallel, complementary and strongly interlinked processes as both
of the concepts emphasize the need for integrated approaches in
decision making and resource management processes. Moreover,
IEP and ICM are two suitable frameworks that emphasize the
importance of the ecological component and also the social, eco-
nomic and managerial elements of sustainability as well
(Wongthong and Harvey, 2014). In the contribution of the IEP and
the ICM frameworks, the site location of OWF is very important.
There are many applications of MCDM methods in environ-
mental planning and management (Ryu and et al., 2011; Wang
et al., 2010). In addition, some studies have been published on
the use of MCDM techniques in coastal management (Ryu and et al.,
2011). These techniques have been used for various issues in coastal
areas, such as evaluating the potential impacts of climate change on
coastal zones by considering different scenarios, integration of in-
formation and the development of decision support systems for

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.02.005
0964-5691/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
18 A. Fetanat, E. Khorasaninejad / Ocean & Coastal Management 109 (2015) 17e28
evaluating the current state of coastal areas and predicting future
trends, as well as some new methods such as Analytic Network
Process (ANP), fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and VIKOR
(VIsekriterijumsko KOmpromisno Rangiranje) and (Pourebrahim
et al., 2010, 2014). Due to the environmental benefits, technolog-
ical advance of wind power and government incentives, the
offshore wind industry has exponentially grown throughout the
world in recent years. Lately, the focus of wind power developers
and energy planners has shifted towards the coastal zone in an
increasing number of countries such as Denmark, UK, Germany and
etc (Ladenburg, 2009). Many works performed in the feasibility
study of OWF installation in various countries with related their
criteria (Pantaleo et al., 2005; Manwell et al., 2007; Schillings et al.,
2012; O'Keeffe and Haggett, 2012; Wieczorek et al., 2013; Salcedo-
Sanz et al., 2013; Reubens et al., 2014; Martín Mederos et al., 2011;
Veigas and Iglesias, 2013; Da et al., 2011; Chen, 2011; Zhixin et al.,
2009; Madariaga et al., 2012; Mostafaeipour, 2010; Oh et al., 2012;
Lee et al., 2013; Islam et al., 2012; Mani and Dhingra, 2013). The
feasibility of wind power development depends on multi criteria
like; wind resources and, especially, constructability offshore.
Therefore, wind resources are the most important criteria (factors)
as the standard for site selection. The sea environment criteria such
as sea depth and soil condition and the length of the transmission
line are also important factors (Kim et al., 2013). Jacob Ladenburg
and Bernd Mo €ller (Ladenburg and Mo €ller, 2011) investigated the
effect of travel distance to the nearest offshore wind farm and the
wind farms attributes on attitude towards offshore wind farms.
Trinh Hoang Nguyen et al. (Nguyen et al., 2013) performed the
development of a framework for data integration to optimize the
remote operations of offshore wind farms. Moreover, they pre-
sented a proposal for solving the data integration problem in the
form of a novel data integration framework. The framework con-
sists of the semantic model, the data source handling, and the in-
formation provisioning. J. Serrano Gonz alez et al. (Gonzalez et al.,
2013) presented a new methodology for designing the trans-
mission system of large offshore wind farms under the presence of
risk. The technology High Voltage Ac Current (HVAC) or High
Voltage Dc Current (HVDC) e Voltage Source Converter (VSC), the
voltage level of the system, the number and the size of transformers
(or converter stations), the number and the size of the cables,
amongst other factors are selected to achieve this aim. Barberis
Negra et al. (Negra et al., 2006) investigated the total transmission
losses of three transmission solutions including HVAC, HVDC Line
Commutated Converter (LCC) and HVDC- VSC for large offshore
wind farms. Vicente Negro et al. (Negro et al., 2014) analyzed some
current uncertainties consist of the design of the transition piece
and the difficulties for the soil properties characterization in the
offshore wind market, with the aim of going one step further in the
development of this sector. These identified uncertainties are
related to the lifetime and return period, loads combination, scour
phenomenon and its protection. The influence of three processes
consists of dissipation of wave energy due to drag resistance on the
offshore wind turbine foundation, the reflection/diffraction of
waves, and the effect of reduced wind shear on the wave field in
and around an offshore wind farm investigated by Erik Damgaard
Christensen et al. (Christensen et al., 2013). S. Ponce de Leo n et al.
(Leo n et al., 2011) performed a numerical study of irregular waves
in the HAVSUL-II (a wind farm located in the Norwegian conti-
nental shelf) using 3rd generation spectral wave models. They also
investigated the effect of a single windmill monopile in the local
incoming wave field using an empirical JONSWAP spectrum, and a
wave hindcast study in the wind farm area using realistic incoming
wave spectra obtained from large scale simulations for the
1991e1992 winter periods. Moreover, the effect of a single
monopile on incident waves with realistic spectra was studied.
Merete Bruun Christiansen and Charlotte B. Hasager (Christiansen
and Hasager, 2005) demonstrated the effect of large offshore
wind farms on the local wind climate using satellite Synthetic
Aperture Radar (SAR). The wake effect considering single, partial
and multiple wakes inside a wind farm evaluated by Mikel de Prada
Gil et al. (Gil et al., 2012) in different wind farm scenarios,
depending on the incoming wind speed and the wind direction.
Madariaga et al. (Madariaga et al., 2013) demonstrated the deferent
topologies in electrical issues of offshore wind power plants. Jacob
Ladenburg (Ladenburg, 2009) estimated the perception of visual
impact of offshore wind farms across three different samples. The
three samples were a national sample (Na-sample) representing
the Danish population and two samples, each representing the
population living close to two existing commercial offshore wind
farms at Horns Rev (Hr-sample) and Nysted (Ny-sample). More-
over, the objective of this study was to test whether the perception
of visual impacts vary systematically with regard to differences in
prior experience. Jeremy Firestone and Willett Kempton (Firestone
and Kempton, 2007) addressed public opinion regarding offshore
wind power based on a survey of residents near a proposed
development off Cape Cod, MA, USA. K.C. Tong (Tong, 1998) pre-
sented the technical and economic aspect of installing an offshore
wind farm based on the FLOAT (an offshore floating wind turbine)
concept. Ji-Young Kim et al. (Kim et al., 2013) performed a feasibility
study to select the optimal site for an offshore wind farm around
the Korean Peninsula. The expected B/C (benefit to cost) ratio, the
possible installation capacity of the wind farm, the convenience of
grid connection, and so on, for each candidate site were considered
as set rating indices in order to select an optimal site of the
candidate coasts. Rehana Perveen et al. (Perveen et al., 2014)
highlighted the present scenario and challenges in development of
offshore wind power. The challenges and opportunities that exist in
the development stages of an offshore wind farm project, from
exploration to erection and installation of wind turbines, con-
struction of platforms, up to maintenance and de-commissioning,
involving important technical aspects are addressed. A number of
investigations conducted by some researchers in the design and
economic assessment of a wind farm addressed and help improve
decision making for planners and investors (Rehman et al., 2011;
Hong and Mo € ller, 2012; Ladenburg and Lutzeyer, 2012).
The aim of this research is to find the best site selection of
offshore wind farm in Bandar Deylam on the Persian Gulf in
southwest of Iran. To achieve this goal, this study applies a novel
hybrid MCDM approach based on the fuzzy ANP, fuzzy decision
DEMATEL and fuzzy ELECTRE methodologies. In order to select best
sites for power station of OWF, six criteria and thirty-one related
sub-criteria are considered.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the proposed
methodology is explained. The OWF, the criteria, the sub-criteria
and case study are described in Section 3. In Section 4, results
and discussion are demonstrated. The conclusions are summarized
in Section 5. Finally, the details of the proposed model are shown in
Appendixes A, B and C.
2. Proposed model
This study presents a robust Decision Support System (DSS) as a
hybrid analytic approach based on the fuzzy ANP, fuzzy DEMATEL
and fuzzy ELECTRE methodologies for the site selection of OWF in
the IEP and the ICM frameworks.
A schematic of the novel decision making algorithm is shown in
Fig. 1. The fuzzy ANP method is employed for standpoints of the site
selection (goal) subject to the criteria and the criteria subject to the
sub-criteria. And due to considering the influences of the criterion
each others, the fuzzy DEMATEL is employed in criteria and sub-
 A. Fetanat, E. Khorasaninejad / Ocean & Coastal Management 109 (2015) 17e28
Fig. 1. Structure of novel decision making algorithm.
criteria sections. Moreover, the fuzzy ELECTRE is applied to calcu-
late of decision making matrices of sub-criteria to alternatives.
The above approaches have been applied in a big matrix (so
called the super matrix). The super matrix can be described as
follows:
Goal Criteria Sub
criteia
2 3
Goal 1 0 0 of that column. Then, the normalized super matrix is raised to
Criteria 4 w21 W22 0 5
Sub
criteria 0 W32 W33
where w21 is the eigenvector of the aggregated comparison matrix
for the goal into criteria, W32 is the sparse matrix include of ei-
genvectors of the aggregated comparison matrices of criteria into
sub-criteria, W22 and W33 are the aggregated comparison matrix for
effectiveness of criteria into each other and effectiveness of sub-
criteria into each other, respectively.
Then a new matrix is generated by exponentiation of the final
achieved super matrix. The vector of elements of goal column ac-
cording to sub-criteria in the super matrix is weighed vector. This
vector is applied in the fuzzy ELECTRE method.
2.1. Fuzzy set theory
Due to incomplete, unavailable and non-measurable informa-
tion, much of the decision making in the real world could not
perform clearly. Fuzzy set theory as a mathematical method was
first developed to solve these problems in 1965 by Zadeh (Zadeh,
1965). Fuzzy theory is more advantageous than traditional set
theory for decision making when dealing with the vagueness ex-
pressions. Decision makers tend to decide according to their past
experiences, knowledge. Therefore, their estimations are often a
function of vagueness and linguistic terms. To integrate the expe-
riences, opinions and ideas of decision makers, it is better to
convert the linguistic estimation to fuzzy number. Hence, the need
for fuzzy logic in decision making problems in the real world is
introduced. Some essential definitions of fuzzy logic and linguistic
terms are briefly described in Ref. (Lin and Wu, 2008).
The linguistic-variable approach is usually employed by the
decision makers to express their assessments, which is very helpful
in dealing with uncertain, incomplete and unspecific situations in
traditional quantitative expressions. Linguistic values can be rep-
resented with fuzzy numbers. In particular, the triangular fuzzy
numbers are commonly used (Lin and Wu, 2008).
2.2. Fuzzy analytic network process (fuzzy ANP) method
Analytic network process (ANP) is the general form of analytic
hierarchy process (AHP) and first introduced by Saaty in 1996
which has been used in MCDM when there is an interrelationship
between the decision levels. In this study, the fuzzy ANP method is
19
used to achieve the principal eigenvector of criteria and sub-criteria
in the super matrix. The steps of the fuzzy ANP calculations are
described in Appendix A (Lee et al., 2012).
2.3. Fuzzy DEMATEL method
This technique was mainly created to evaluate the complex
world problems at the end of 1971 (Asgharpour, 2011). This method
is very helpful to solve the problems involving causal relationships
between complex factors. In this research, the fuzzy DEMATEL
method is used to achieve the principal the aggregated comparison
matrix for influences of criteria into each other and influences of
sub-criteria into each other. The steps of the fuzzy DEMATEL for-
mulations are explained in Appendix B (Büyüko € zkanG, 2012).
2.4. Super matrix Formation
In this step, the inner dependence matrix of criteria and sub-
criteria is substituted in the unweighted super matrix. To weight
the super matrix, each weight in the column is divided by the sum
limiting powers to obtain a priority ranking for each of the alter-
natives. The weights of the sub-criteria in the “Goal” column are
employed to be used in the fuzzy ELECTRE method. The sub-criteria
weights denote the importance of each sub-criterion when syn-
thesizing the scoring of the four sites against each of them.
2.5. Fuzzy ELECTRE method
The ELECTRE was first proposed by Bernard Roy and his col-
leagues at SEMA consultancy company in 1965 (Benayoun et al.,
1966). The ELECTRE method is based on the study of outranking
relations and uses concordance and discordance indices to analyze
the outranking relations between the alternatives. Concordance
and discordance indices can be viewed as measurements of satis-
faction and dissatisfaction that a decision maker chooses one
alternative over the other (Kabak et al., 2012). The steps of the fuzzy
ELECTRE calculations are illustrated in Appendix C (Arianejad and
Safakish, 2009).
3. Offshore wind farms
3.1. Concepts
Offshore winds are stronger and steadier than the onshore
wind; hence, the OWFs employ to produce safe and clear energy.
For instance, the velocity of wind at 10e15 m from shore is higher
by 20e25 per cent and is a significant advantage. Moreover, as a
result of being the lesser turbulence in offshore wind in comparison
with the onshore wind, the fatigue loads on the turbine are reduced
and their service life will be increased. Some of the other advan-
tages of using OWFs are briefly presented as follows (Mathew,
2006):
 Due to the lesser resistance to the wind flow on the sea, taller
towers are not required for offshore farms.
 Since OWFs are more environmentally acceptable, the land use,
noise effect and visual impact may not be major concerns for
planning approvals.
 As opposed to the onshore turbines, which are made to run at
tip speed ratios lower than the optimum to reduce the noise
pollution, the offshore systems can be designed to operate at
higher speed sometimes 10 percent higher resulting in better
aerodynamic efficiency.
20 A. Fetanat, E. Khorasaninejad / Ocean & Coastal Management 109 (2015) 17e28
3.2. Criteria and sub-criteria
A clear understanding of the offshore conditions is essential for
the design. Apart from the wind characteristics, the important
criteria and their sub criteria for selecting the best sitting of OWF
are considered as follows (Mostashari, 2011):
➢ Depth and height (C1): The condition or quality of being deep
and the distance from the base of water to the top.
 Shallow water (SC11): Wind turbines installed in shallow
water offshore. As wave loadings in shallow waters are
significantly lower at frequencies below 0.04 Hz and beyond
0.4 Hz, structures with their lowest natural frequency greater
than 0.45e0.5 Hz are generally adopted for offshore applica-
tions. For deep-water applications, structures with natural
frequencies in excess of 1 Hz are normally used (Vepa, 2013).
 Wave heights (SC12): The effects of waves (wave heights of
5e10 m) need to be considered in the OWF design (Sulaiman
et al., 2013).
➢ Environmental issues (C2):
 Environmental impact (SC21): The criterion evaluates the
renewable energy's damage on the quality of the
environment.
 Noise impact (Construction and Operation) (SC22): Noise is not
a direct factor to destroy environment, but it can influence the
people's work or life.
 Proximity to migratory paths for birds (SC23): It is defined as
the distance between OWF and the paths of the migration for
births.
 Proximity to migratory paths for marine life (SC24): It is
defined as the distance between OWF and the paths of the
migration for marine life.
➢ Proximity to facilities (C3):
 Proximity to area of electric demand (SC31): It is defined as the
distance between OWF and the consumption energy in the
system.
 Proximity to power transmission grid (SC32): It is defined as
the distance between OWF and the power transmission grids
(lines).
 Proximity to facilities for construction (SC33): It is defined as
the distance between OWF and the facilities for the
construction.
 Impact of navigation, aviation (SC34): This criterion evaluates
adjacent OWF to boat, helicopter paths.
➢ Economic aspects (C4): economic are important in every aspect
of our life. When trying to make a decision for the best site se-
lection OWF, several costs should be taken into account.
 Commercial feasibility (SC41): This criterion measures the
secure of the finance of the possibility for implementation of
the renewable energy.
 Economic externalities (SC42): This means quality or condition
of being external or directed toward outside or exterior, inci-
dental situation that may affect a course of economic process
and activity.
 Local economic benefits (SC43): This criterion evaluates eco-
nomic benefits for the people of the region.
 Ratio of local benefits to impacts (SC44): It is defined as the
ratio of the benefit energy to the impacts of energy in the
OWF.
 Ratio of power generation to impacts (SC45): It is defined as
the ratio of the generated energy to the impacts of energy in
the system.
 Cost-benefit analysis (SC46): This criterion judges the pro-
posed renewable energy alternative as economically by using
one of the engineering economics techniques which is present
benefit/cost analysis (B/C). This criterion analyzes the total
cost of the energy investment in order to be fully operational.
➢ Resource technical (C5): a resource, human or otherwise, that is
used to facilitate or which enables technical solutions.
 Wind resource availability (SC51): The criterion measures the
availability of the wind resource alternative to decrease
financial assets and reach the high performance.
 Physical feasibility (SC52): This criterion measures the secure
of the possibility for implementation of the renewable energy.
 Multiple resource use conflict (SC53): This criterion indicates
disagreements between the various resources of OWF.
 Technical feasibility and adequate wind regime (SC54): This
criterion includes an evaluation which is based on a qualita-
tive comparison between the complexity of the considered
technology, and the capacity of local actors to ensure an
appropriate operating support for maintenance and installa-
tion of technology for OWF alternative.
 Alternative sites review (SC55): To complete assessment, the
various sites are analyzed.
 Sufficient study times (SC56): The number of times tested
successfully can be taken into account as a decision parameter.
➢ Culture (C6): culture refers to the cumulative deposit of
knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hi-
erarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, con-
cepts of the universe, and material objects and possessions
acquired by a group of people in the course of generations
through individual and group striving.
 Community acceptance (SC61): The criterion enhances
consensus among social partners.
 Nearby shoreline sparsely inhabited (SC62): It is defined as the
distance OWF to the shoreline with high population.
 Adequate consideration of alternative sites (SC63): It takes into
account avoiding the reactions from special interest social
groups for OWF alternatives.
 Aesthetic considerations (SC64): It is defined as the view as-
pects of OWF for the people in the shoreline.
 Collaborative process (SC65): This criterion evaluates the
combined work for implementation of an OWF.
 Mitigation of adverse local impacts (SC66): It is defined as the
lessening opposed local impacts and the intensities of OWF.
 Criteria defined by federal, state, local agencies and public
(SC67): The criterion searches whether or not a consensus
among leaders' opinions for proposed renewable energy
alternative exists. It takes into account avoiding the reactions
of the politicians and satisfying political leaders.
 Collaborative sitting (SC68): A binary factor that shows
meeting of experts for the implementation of the project.
 Federal and/or state offshore development regulatory pro-
gram in place (SC69): The criterion analyzes the integration of
the national energy policy and the suggested renewable en-
ergy alternative. It measures the degree of objectives'
convergence between the government policy and the sug-
gested policy. The criterion also takes into account the gov-
ernment's support, the tendency of institutional actors, and
the policy of public information.
3.3. Case study
There are many installed wind turbines in suitable regions like
Manjil and Binalood, but there has not been any offshore wind
installation yet in Iran (Mostafaeipour, 2010). Four sites in Bandar
Deylam on the Persian Gulf in the southwest of Iran are considered
as alternatives for the site selection of OWF. These alternatives are
Sajafi region (site 1 or Alternative 1 (A1)), Shah Abdollah region (site
 A. Fetanat, E. Khorasaninejad / Ocean & Coastal Management 109 (2015) 17e28 21

2 or Alternative 2 (A2)), Islamic Azad University region (site 3 or Table 1

Alternative 3 (A3)) and Boveirat region (site 4) or Alternative 4 (A4)). Some characteristics of the proposed sites.

Power consumption in this city is 40 MW. Site 4 is located in the Aspects Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
south of the city center in 7 km distance and site 3 is located in the Traffic Oil e Vehicle e
north of the city center in 3 km distance. Site 2 is located in the shipment traffic
northwest of the site 3 in 10 km distance and Site 1 is located in the Political culture Oily Religious Academic e
southwest of the site 2 in 40 km distance. Fig. 2 shows the region region region
Forest e e Thorn e
geographical location of the proposed sites.
forest
Some characteristics of these sites are shown in Table 1. Water salinity Equal Equal Equal Equal
According to Table 1, the underwater lives and the marshland in Cove region e e Yes Yes
site 1 is greater than sites 2, 3 and 4 (the underwater lives and the Rank of birds 2 1 4 3 (including
migrations wild geese)
marshland of sites 2, 3 and 4 are same). The Sandy land in sites 2, 3
Rank of under 1 2 2 2
and 4 are greater than site 1. For the migration of birds and the tidal water lives
water, rank 1 is the greatest and rank 4 is the least. Rank of Fertile land e e 2 1
The wind blows from the West to the East and its characteristics Rank of Marsh land 1 2 2 2
for these sites are shown in Table 2. Rank of sandy land 2 1 1 1
Rank of tidal water 1 4 2 3
The wind resource availability (SC51) is a sub-criteria of the
Shallow water at ~20 m ~10 m ~10 m ~22 m
decision making. But according to Table 2, if the potential OWF sites 1 km of onshore
are decided by just taking in to account the monthly average wind Wave height ~0.5e1 m ~0.5 m ~1 m ~1.5e2 m
data, site 1 compared to other sites is the best. Then sites 2 and 3 are Distance from power ~9 km ~4 km ~1e3 km ~4 km
the best alternatives and finally site 4 is the worst site. network

The five experts in Iranian navigation and shipment organiza-

tion are invited to contribute their expertise in the selection of the
best offshore wind farm. The schematic structure of the network
including the criteria, the sub-criteria and the alternatives is dis-
played in Fig. 3. The rounded arrows show the influences of criteria
(or sub-criteria) subject to another criteria (or sub-criteria).
3.4. Interactions between the criteria and the sub-criteria
The aim of the phase is to determine the network relationships
among criteria in influence each other. A questionnaire was used to
find out influential relations from each expert for ranking each
criterion on the appropriate site with a five-point scale ranging
from No to VH, representing from ‘No influence (No)’ to ‘Very high
influence (VH) ’, respectively (According to Table B.1). With
considering of complexity of this context, the interactions between
the criteria and the sub-criteria of OWF or other ocean renewable
energy could be studied in the future works. It's very essential to
have an in-depth research about these. These assessments could be
done with statistical or data mining analysis. For example interac-
tion between culture and environment or between economic and
environment aspects can be explained as follows: The relationship
between society and environment is always an important topic
which people pay much attention to. The structure and function of
the ecosystem is sustained by synergistic feedbacks between hu-
man (culture) societies and their environment. The population
growth (one of the culture of the people) in a certain area would be
limited by the carrying capacity of the environment. The human
subsystem, in turn, actively modifies its physical and biological
environment; carrying capacity of an area may be decreased
through the degradation of life-support systems, or increased by
organizing differently or using new technology that works with the
environment (Mitsch and Jogensen, 1989). Economic development
and environmental protection are not the conflicting sides. Any
change in the economic aspects will have impacts on the ocean and
coastal environment and vice versa, whether positively or nega-
tively, immediately or eventually. And in many cases, negative re-
sults are irreversible (Awan, 2013).
An example for interrelationships between the criteria is shown
in Fig. 4.
4. Results and discussion
According to the appendix A, the priority vector and lmax of the
criteria are calculated and shown as follows:

Fig. 2. The geographical location of the proposed site for the offshore wind facility and the proposed alternatives (www.Persiangulfstudies.co).
22 A. Fetanat, E. Khorasaninejad / Ocean & Coastal Management 109 (2015) 17e28

Table 2
The characteristics of wind in the proposed sites.

Month Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4

Mean Maximum speed Mean Maximum speed Mean Maximum speed Mean Maximum speed
speed (m/s) speed (m/s) speed (m/s) speed (m/s)
(m/s) Angle (degree) (m/s) Angle (degree) (m/s) Angle (degree) (m/s) Angle (degree)

1 4.5 12 210 3.6 9 130 2.5 8 120 2 8 320

2 4 10 330 4.2 11 160 2.6 12 150 2.7 8 130
3 5 12 130 3.8 12 280 2.8 12 290 3.2 10 160
4 4.6 13 140 3.6 11 160 3.1 10 150 3.1 15 180
5 4.9 10 150 4.1 12 320 3.6 11 330 3.2 14 120
6 5.6 14 310 4.4 11 300 3.5 10 310 3.9 9 310
7 4.8 10 310 3.2 9 190 2.9 8 180 3.1 9 280
8 4.5 11 300 4.1 10 210 2.8 8 230 2.7 7 250
9 4.4 10 300 3.2 11 300 2.5 10 280 2.7 8 220
10 3.9 9 310 3.1 10 120 2.8 10 110 2.4 9 280
11 3.4 13 340 2.8 9 150 2.3 8 170 1.8 8 130
12 4.2 10 330 3.2 8 280 2.2 9 300 2.6 7 110
Average 4.48 3.61 2.8 2.78

Fig. 3. The criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives network for the case.
 A. Fetanat, E. Khorasaninejad / Ocean & Coastal Management 109 (2015) 17e28 23

Fig. 4. The interrelationship between criteria.

CI 0:1139
CR ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:0918
RI 1:24
Since CR is less than 0.1, the experts’ judgments are consistent. If
the consistency test fails, the experts are asked to fill out the spe-
cific part of the questionnaires again. Priority vectors for the
importance of the sub-criteria with respect to the same upper-level
criterion are calculated in a similar way.
According to the Appendix B, the inner dependence matrix of
the Criteria is:

Fig. 5. The causal diagram.

2 3 Also, the causal diagram is shown in Fig. 5.

C1 0:0283
C2 6 7
6 0:1629 7
Looking at this causal diagram, it is clear that evaluation factors
C3 6
6 0:2586 7
7
are visually divided into two groups, the cause group including C1,
w21 ¼
C4 6 7
6 0:4059 7
C3and C5and the effect group including C2, C4and C6. The inner
C5 4 0:0936 5 dependence matrix for the influence of the sub-criteria with
C6 0:0507 respect to the same upper-level criterion is calculated in a similar
way.
lmax ¼ 6:5693. The normalized super matrix is shown in Table 3.
The consistency test is performed by calculating CI and CR: To calculate the weighted super matrix, the normalized super
matrix is raised to the power 10000. According to this weighted
super matrix, the weights of the sub-criteria in the ‘‘Goal’’ column
lmax
n 6:5693
6
CI ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:1139 are shown in Table 4.
n
1 6
1 According to Appendix C, the overall dominance matrix (E) is
determined as:

Table 3
The normalized super matrix.

Goal C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5 SC6

Goal 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C1 0 0 0 0 0 0
C2 0 0 0 0 0 0
C3 0 0 0 0 0 0
C4 w21 W22 0 0 0 0 0 0
C5 0 0 0 0 0 0
C6 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC1 0 w32_1 0 0 0 0 0 W33_1 0 0 0 0 0
SC2 0 0 w32_2 0 0 0 0 0 W33-2 0 0 0 0
SC3 0 0 0 w32_3 0 0 0 0 0 W33-3 0 0 0
SC4 0 0 0 0 w32_4 0 0 0 0 0 W33-4 0 0
SC5 0 0 0 0 0 w32_5 0 0 0 0 0 W33-5 0
SC6 0 0 0 0 0 0 w32_6 0 0 0 0 0 W33-6
24 A. Fetanat, E. Khorasaninejad / Ocean & Coastal Management 109 (2015) 17e28

wsub ¼ ½ 0:0582 0:0838 0:0331 0:0412 0:0370 0:0372 0:0473 0:0581 0:0581 0:0816 0:0326 0:0397 0:0356 0:0310 0:0251 0:0333 0:0251 0:0270 0:0196 0:0310 0:0292 0:0165 0:0110 0:0112 0:0108 0:0136
Fig. 6. The diagram of overall dominance matrix (E).

2 3

0 0 0
61
0 07
6
E¼4 7
1 1
15
1 0 0

The overall dominance matrix (E) can be indicated by the di-
agram as follows:
Fig. 6 shows that the alternative A3 is the best site of OWF for
Bandar Deylam. Then A2, A4 are the best alternatives and finally
alternative A1 is the worst site (in other words A3 > A2, A4 > A1).
In order to investigate the robustness of the outcomes of de-
cision making, a sensitivity analysis is performed next by changing
the priorities of the criteria. Table 5 indicate the sensitivity anal-
ysis when the priority of depths and heights (C1), environmental
issues (C2), proximity to facilities (C3), economic aspects (C4),
resource technical levels (C5) and culture (C6) changes,
respectively.
Depending on the changes of the priorities of the criteria, the
best site of OWF may change as a result. As shown in Table 5, no
matter how much the priority of C1 to C6 changes, the ranking of
the four alternatives remains the same. Therefore, the current
solution (A3 > A2, A4 > A1) is rather robust.

5. Conclusions

The Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) framework has

been increasingly adopted in coastal cities of Iran. The correlations
between ICM governance, coastal environmental, socioeconomic
sustainability and Integrated Energy Planning (IEP) are analyzed
using MCDM. The IEP and the ICM are two suitable frameworks
that emphasize the importance of the ecological component and
also the social, economic and managerial elements of sustain-
ability as well. Development of offshore wind farms (OWFs) in
different countries has become widely understood as being
essential to achieve the national target for the renewable energy.
Decision makers look forward to a causal analytical method which
can do with the group decision making problem in the fuzzy en-
vironments of renewable energy systems. In the contribution of
the IEP and the ICM frameworks, Site location of OWF is very
important. A case study is carried out for four sites in Bandar
The weights of the sub-criteria in the ‘‘Goal’’ column.

Deylam on the Persian Gulf in the southwest of Iran. Six criteria

(Depths and Heights, Environmental Issues, Proximity to Facilities,
0:0141 0:0145 0:0131 0:0150 0:0154

Economic Aspects, Resource Technical levels and Culture) and the

related sub-criteria are considered. Then we have combined Fuzzy
ANP, fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy ELECTRE approaches to develop a
novel robust decision support system (DSS). This combination
used in this study offered a more precise and accurate analysis by
integrating interdependent relationships within and among a set
of criteria. Moreover, the fuzzy ELECTE method helped to choose
the alternative for ideal solution of site location for OWFs effi-
ciently. As a result, we hope that DSS will help future innovation
improvements to be more practical, efficient in the site location
for the renewable energy systems. The evaluation criteria and this
Table 4

methodology could be applied to other coastal cities for promot-

ing the progress of ICM towards the goal of sustainability.
 A. Fetanat, E. Khorasaninejad / Ocean & Coastal Management 109 (2015) 17e28 25

Table 5
The priority changes in C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6 and the ranking of alternatives.

Criteria and Changes of Criteria Subject to Priority Vector Priority Vector Changes of Criteria Subject to Priority Vector
Ranking and Ranking and Ranking and Ranking

C1 0.0211 0.0220 0.0244 0.0283 0.0339 0.0424 0.0573

Ranking A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1
C2 0.1358 0.1550 0.1604 0.1629 0.1633 0.1825 0.2170
Ranking A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1
C3 0.2298 0.2429 0.2539 0.2586 0.2623 0.2703 0.2949
Ranking A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1
C4 0.3240 0.3507 0.3724 0.4059 0.4167 0.4358 0.4455
Ranking A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1
C5 0.0716 0.0723 0.0829 0.0936 0.1006 0.1121 0.1272
Ranking A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1
C6 0.0361 0.0404 0.0417 0.0507 0.0572 0.0596 0.0624
Ranking A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1 A3 > A2, A4 > A1

Acknowledgement whereM ~ is the triangular fuzzy number.

Step 5. Determine the priorities of the criteria, sub-criteria. In the
The authors acknowledge financial support from Islamic Azad other words, the eigenvector (divide the geometric average in each
University grant in Behbahan branch. row into sum of all elements in column of geometric average) and
the largest eigenvalue of the aggregated comparison matrix for the
Appendix A. Fuzzy ANP criteria and sub-criteria are obtained as follows:

A systematic Fuzzy ANP model is proposed here and the offered W  w ¼ lmax  w (A.3)
steps are as follows:
Step 1. Form the super matrix by determining the criteria and where Wis the aggregated comparison matrix, w is the eigenvector
sub-criteria in the whole system. and lmax is the largest eigenvalue of W.
Step 2. Compare the criteria/and sub-criteria with each other by Step 6. Examine the consistency property of the aggregated
a committee of experts with N members. comparison matrices. The consistency index (CI) and consistency
This is done through pairwise comparisons by asking ‘‘How ratio (CR) are defined as follows (Lee et al., 2012):
much importance does a criterion/or sub-criterion have compared
to another criterion/or sub-criterion with respect to our interests or lmax
n CI
CI ¼ CR ¼ (A.4)
preferences?” The relative importance value is determined using a n
1 RI
Fuzzy number as listed in Table A.1 to represent equal importance
to extreme importance. where n is the number of items being compared in the pairwise
comparison matrix and RI is a random index and its values are given
Table A1 in Table A.2. When the calculated value of CR becomes greater than
The fuzzy linguistic scale for ANP method. the threshold, the committee of experts must revise the part of the
questionnaire and the steps 1e6 are repeated again.
Linguistic term Abbreviation Triangular fuzzy numbers

Equal E (1, 1, 1.5)

Very little high VLH (1.5, 2.5, 3.5) Table A2
Little high LH (2.5, 3.5, 4.5) The value of random index.
Moderately High MH (3.5, 4.5, 5.5)
High H (4.5, 5.5, 6.5) Size of matrix 22 33 44 55 66
Very high VH (5.5, 6.5, 7.5) RI 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24
Very big high VBH (6.5, 7.5, 8.5)
Extremely high EH (7.5, 8.5, 9)

Step 3. Employ geometric average approach to aggregate ex- Appendix B. Fuzzy DEMATEL
perts’ responses and calculate triangular fuzzy numbers. For
example, the triangular fuzzy number for the relative importance A systematic Fuzzy DEMATEL model is proposed here and the
between criterion i and criterion j is calculated as follows: offered steps are as follows:
Step 1. Compare the influences of criteria/or sub-criteria with
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
each other by a committee of experts with N members. This is done
li;j ¼ PN ; ¼ P N
; ¼ PN
N N N
B ijk mi;j B ijk ui;j k¼1 Bijk (A.1)
k¼1 k¼1 through pairwise comparisons by asking ‘‘How much influence
does a criterion/or sub-criterion have compared to another crite-
whereBijk is the pairwise comparison value between criterion i and
rion/or sub-criterion with respect to our interests or preferences?”
criterion j determined by expert k.
The relative influence value is determined using a Fuzzy number as
Step 4. Defuzzify each fuzzy number into a crisp number using
listed in Table B.1 to represent no influence to extreme influence.
Yager ranking method as follows (Asgharpour, 2011):
Step 2. Employ arithmetic average approach to aggregate ex-
perts’ responses and calculate triangular fuzzy numbers (is called
Z1  u 
1  ~ l 
~ li;j þ 2mi;j þ ui;j the fuzzy initial direct relation matrix(Ze)). For example, the trian-
Mi;j ¼ M i;j þ M i;j da ¼ (A.2)
2 a a 4 gular fuzzy number for the relative influences between criterion i
0 and criterion j is calculated as follows:
26 A. Fetanat, E. Khorasaninejad / Ocean & Coastal Management 109 (2015) 17e28

Table B1
The fuzzy linguistic scale for DEMATEL method. X
nC
Di ¼ tij i ¼ 1; 2; :::; nC (B.6)
Linguistic term Abbreviation Triangular fuzzy numbers
j¼1
No influence No (0, 0, 0.25)
Very low influence VL (0, 0.25, 0.5)
Low influence L (0.25, 0.5, 0.75)
X
nC
Rj ¼ tij j ¼ 1; 2; :::; nC (B.7)
High influence H (0.5, 0.75, 1)
Very high influence VH (0.75, 1, 1) i¼1

where Di and Rj denote the sum of rows and the sum of columns,
respectively. Then Di represents total direct and indirect effects that
the factor i has given to other factors and Rj shows the total effects,
1 X
N
1 X
N
1 X
N both direct and indirect received by a factor j given by other factors.
l0 i;j ¼ B0 ijk ; m0 i;j ¼ B0 ijk ; u0 i;j ¼ B0 ijk (B.1) A causal diagram can be acquired by mapping the dataset of
N N N
k¼1 k¼1 k¼1
(Di þ Rj¼i, Di
Rj¼i), where the horizontal axis (Di þ Rj¼i) is made by
adding Rj¼i to Di, and the vertical axis (Di- Rj¼i) is made by sub-
where B0 ijk is the relative influence value between criterion i and
tracting Rj¼i from Di. When i ¼ j, then the term (Di þ Rj) represents
criterion j determined by expert k.
the degree of importance of the factor, and the term (Di e Rj) rep-
Step 3. Normalize the fuzzy initial direct relation matrix by the
resents the net effect that the factor contributes to the system in
following equations:
relation to other factors. If the term (Di e Rj) is positive, the factor i
is net causer, and if the previous expression is negative factor i is a
 X
nC
net receiver (Tzeng et al., 2007).
s ¼ 1 max1inC ~ ¼sZ
u0 ij Y ~ (B.2)
j¼1
Appendix C. Fuzzy ELECTRE
where nC is the number of the criteria/or sub-criteria in the pairwise
comparison matrix. A systematic Fuzzy ELECTRE model is proposed here and the
Step 4. Determine the fuzzy total-relation matrix by using the offered steps are as follows:
following way: Step 1. Compare the ranking of malt alternatives based on the
characteristic of nsub sub-criteria together to assist in selecting the
1 The elements of Y~ ¼ ðl0 ; m0 ; u0 Þ are extracted to three crisp best alternative by a committee of experts with N members.
ij ij ij ij
matrices as follows: This is done through pairwise comparisons by asking ‘‘How
much is an alternative compared to other alternative more pref-
erable than each sub-criterion?” The relative preference value is
determined using a Fuzzy number as listed in Table C.1 to represent
2 3 none to excellent. The fuzzy decision matrix for malt alternatives
0 l0 12 / l0 1n and nsub sub-criteria is shown in Fig. C. 1.
6 l0 0 / l0 2n 7
6 21 7
Y1 ¼ 6 7;
4 « « 5
l0 n1 l0 n2 / 0
2 3 2 3
0 m0 12 / m0 1n 0 u0 12 / u0 1n
6 m0 0 / m0 2n 7 6 u0 0 / u0 2n 7
6 21 7 6 21 7
Y2 ¼ 6 7; Y3 ¼ 6 7
4 « « 5 4 « « 5
m0 n1 m0 n2 / 0 u0 n1 u0 n2 / 0
(B.3) Fig. C.1. The fuzzy decision matrix for problem.

2 The total-relation fuzzy matrix T~ is defined as follows Table C1

The fuzzy linguistic scale for ELECTRE method.

Linguistic term Abbreviation Triangular fuzzy numbers

None N (0, 0, 0.1)

T1 ¼ Y1 ðI
Y1 Þ
1 ; T2 ¼ Y2 ðI
Y2 Þ
1 ; T3 ¼ Y3 ðI
Y3 Þ
1 T~ Very low VL (0, 0.1, 0.2)
Low L (0.1, 0.2, 0.3)
¼ ðT1 ; T2 ; T3 Þ Fairly low FL (0.2, 0.3, 0.4)
More or less low ML (0.3, 0.4, 0.5)
(B.4) Medium M (0.4, 0.5, 0.6)
Step 5. Defuzzify the total-relation fuzzy matrix T~ into a crisp More or less good MG (0.5, 0.6, 0.7)
Fairly good FG (0.6, 0.7, 0.8)
number using Yager ranking method to obtain the inner depen- Good G (0.7, 0.8, 0.9)
dence matrix. Very good VG (0.8, 0.9, 1)
Step 6: Calculate the sum of rows and the sum of columns Excellent E (0.9, 1, 1)
through the following formulas (WuWW, 2012).
where D~ represents the fuzzy decision matrix with alternatives (Ai,

T ¼ tij ; i; j ¼ 1; 2; :::; nC (B.5) i¼1,2, …, malt)and sub-criteria (SCj, j¼1,2, …, nsub).
Step 2. Employ arithmetic average approach to aggregate
 A. Fetanat, E. Khorasaninejad / Ocean & Coastal Management 109 (2015) 17e28 27

experts’ responses and calculate triangular fuzzy numbers. ,

Step 3. Defuzzify each fuzzy number into a crisp number using X
malt X
malt
d¼ DISpq m ðm
1Þ (C.9)
Yager ranking method. alt alt
p¼1 q¼1
Step 4. Normalize the aggregate decision matrix as follows:

rij DISpq  d / Gpq ¼ 1

normij ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pmalt 2 i ¼ 1; 2; ::: ; malt and j (C.10)
r DISpq > d / Gpq ¼ 0
i¼1 ij

¼ 1; 2; ::: ; nsub : (C.1) Step 9. Determine the overall dominance matrix by the following
equation:
Step 5. Calculate the weighted normalized decision matrix by
the following equation: Epq ¼ Fpq  Gpq (C.11)
The matrix E indicates the relative sequence alternatives. If
nij ¼ normij : wsubj i ¼ 1; 2; :::; malt ; j ¼ 1; 2; :::; nsub (C.2) Epq ¼ 1 then Ap outranks Aq. Therefore, the following values show
that Ap is a the effective alternative.
where nij is the weighted normalized value and wsubj is the weight
of the jth sub-criterion obtained from the first column of super Epq ¼ 1 ; psq; dq ¼ 1; 2; :::; malt
(C.12)
matrix according to Section 2.4 and (.) is matrices dot product. Eip ¼ 0 ; isp; isq; ci ¼ 1; 2; :::; malt
Step 6. Determine the concordance and discordance sets. For
each pair of alternatives Ap and Aq (p, q ¼ 1, 2, …, malt and p s q) the In a word, each column including many one is a non-dominated
set of sub-criteria are divided into two distinct subsets. If alterna- alternative.
tive Ap is preferred to Aq for all sub-criteria, the concordance set is
composed. This can be written as: References


CONðp; qÞ ¼ jnpj > nqi
wherenpj is the weighted normalized rating of alternative Ap with
respect to the jth sub-criterion. In other words, CON(p, q) is the
collection of attributes where Ap is better than or equal to Aq. The
complement of CON(p, q), the discordance set, contains all sub-
criteria for which Ap is worse than Aq. This can be written as:
(C.3) Arianejad, M., Safakish, M.S., 2009. Multi-criteria Decision Making, first ed. Islamic
Azad University Broujerd Branch and ToyserKan (in Persian).
Asgharpour, M.J., 2011. Multiple Criteria Decision Making, ninth ed. Tehran Uni-
versity Press (in Persian).
Awan, A.G., 2013. Relationship between environment and sustainable economic
development: a theoretical approach to environmental problems. Int. J. Asian
Soc. Sci. 3 (3), 741e761.
Benayoun, R., Roy, B., Sussman, B., 1966. Electre: Uneme thode pour guider le choix
en presence des points de vue multiples. Technical report, SEMA-METRA In-
ternational, Direction Scientifique, Note de travail 49.
Büyüko €zkanG, Çifçi G., 2012. A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy
 
DISðp; qÞ ¼ jnpj < nqi (C.4) DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy̮ TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert Syst.
Appl. 39, 3000e3011.
Chen, J., 2011. Development of offshore wind power in China. Renew. Sustain. En-
Step 7. Calculate the concordance and discordance indices. The
ergy Rev. 15, 5013e5020.
concordance index of CON(p, q) is defined as: Christensen, E.D., Johnson, M., Sørensen, O.R., Hasager, C.B., Badger, M., Larsen, S.E.,
2013. Transmission of wave energy through an offshore wind turbine farm.
X Coast. Eng. 82, 25e46.
CONpq ¼ wsubj (C.5) Christiansen, M.B., Hasager, C.B., 2005. Wake effects of large offshore wind farms
j2Conðp;qÞ identified from satellite SAR. Remote Sens. Environ. 98, 251e268.
Da, Z., Xiliang, Z., Jiankun, H., Qimin, C., 2011. Offshore wind energy development in
where j are attributes contained in the concordance set CON(p, China: current status and future perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15,
q). The discordance index DIS(p, q) represents the degree of 4673e4684.
Firestone, J., Kempton, W., 2007. Public opinion about large offshore wind power:
disagreement in Ap /Aq and can be defined as: underlying factors. Energy Policy 35, 1584e1598.
Gil, M.D.P., Gomis-Bellmunt, O., Sumper, A., Bergas-Jane , J., 2012. Power generation
 
Maxj* 2DISðp;qÞ npj*
nqj* 
efficiency analysis of offshore wind farms connected to a SLPC (single large
DISpq ¼   (C.6) power converter) operated with variable frequencies considering wake effects.
Maxj2J npj
nqj  Energy 37, 455e468.
Gonza lez, J.S., Paya n, M.B., Santos, J.R., 2013. Optimum design of transmissions
where j* are indices of attributes contained in the discordance systems for offshore wind farms including decision making under risk. Renew.
Energy 59, 115e127.
set DIS(p, q), vij is the weighted normalized evaluation of alternative Hong, L., Mo €ller, B., 2012. An economic assessment of tropical cyclone risk on
i on sub-criterion j and J is set of the indices of sub-criteria. offshore wind farms. Renew. Energy 44, 180e192.
Step 8. Calculate the concordance and discordance dominance Islam, A.B.M.S., Jameel, M., Jumaat, M.Z., Shirazi, S.M., Salman, F.A., 2012. Review of
offshore energy in Malaysia and floating Spar platform for sustainable explo-
matrices. The concordance dominance matrix F(p, q) is obtained ration. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 6268e6284.
based on the Boolean matrix and the threshold value CON. The Kabak, M., Burmaogelu, S., Kazançogelu, Y., 2012. A fuzzy hybrid MCDM approach for
threshold value CON can be defined as professional selection,. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 3516e3525.
Kim, J.Y., Oh, K.Y., Kang, K.S., Lee, J.S., 2013. Site selection of offshore wind farms
, around the Korean Peninsula through economic evaluation. Renew. Energy 54,
X
malt X
malt 189e195.
CON ¼ CONpq malt ðmalt
1Þ (C.7) Ladenburg, J., 2009. Visual impact assessment of offshore wind farms and prior
p¼1 q¼1 experience. Appl. Energy 86, 380e387.
Ladenburg, J., Lutzeyer, S., 2012. The economics of visual disamenity reductions of
offshore wind farmsdreview and suggestions from an emerging field. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 6793e6802.
CONpq  CON / Fpq ¼ 1 Ladenburg, J., Mo €ller, B., 2011. Attitude and acceptance of offshore wind farmsdthe
(C.8)
CONpq < CON / Fpq ¼ 0 influence of travel time and wind farm attributes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
15, 4223e4235.
Also, the discordance dominance matrix G(p, q) is obtained Lee, A.H.I., Hung, M.C., Kang, H.K., Pearn, W.L., 2012. A wind turbine evaluation
model under a multi-criteria decision making environment. Energy Convers.
based on the Boolean matrix and the threshold value d.The Manag. 64, 289e300.
threshold value d can be defined as: Lee, M.E., Kim, G., Jeong, S.T., Ko, D.H., Kang, K.S., 2013. Assessment of offshore wind
28 A. Fetanat, E. Khorasaninejad / Ocean & Coastal Management 109 (2015) 17e28
energy at Younggwang in Korea. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 21, 131e141.
n, S.P.D., Bettencourt, J.H., Kjerstad, N., 2011. Simulation of irregular waves in an
Leo
offshore wind farm with a spectral wave model. Cont. Shelf Res. 31, 1541e1557.
Lin, C.J., Wu, W.W., 2008. A causal analytical method for group decision making
under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst. Appl. 34, 205e213.
Madariaga, A., Alegría, M.D., Martín, J.L., Eguía, P., Ceballos, S., 2012. Current facts
about offshore wind farms. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 3105e3116.
Madariaga, A., Martín, J.L., Zamora, I., Alegría, I.M.D., Ceballos, S., 2013. Technolog-
ical trends in electric topologies for offshore wind power plants. Renew. Sus-
tain. Energy Rev. 24, 32e44.
Mani, S., Dhingra, T., 2013. Policies to accelerate the growth of offshore wind energy
sector in India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 24, 473e482.
Manwell, J.F., Elkinton, C.N., Rogers, A.L., McGowan, J.G., 2007. Review of design
conditions applicable to offshore wind energy systems in the United States.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 11, 210e234.
Martín Mederos, A.C., Medina Padro n, J.F., Feijo
 o Lorenzo, A.E., 2011. An offshore
wind atlas for the Canary Islands. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 612e620.
Mathew, S., 2006. Wind Energy, Fundamentals, Resource Analysis and Economics.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
Mitsch, W.J., Jogensen, S.E., 1989. Ecological Engineering: an Introduction to Eco-
technology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Mostafaeipour, A., 2010. Feasibility study of offshore wind turbine installation in
Iran compared with the world. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14, 1722e1743.
Mostashari, A., 2011. Collaborative Modeling and Decision Making for Complex
Energy Systems. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd, USA.
Negra, N.B., Todorovic, J., Ackermann, T., 2006. Loss evaluation of HVAC and HVDC
transmission solutions for large offshore wind farms. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 76,
916e927.
 pez-Gutie
Negro, V., Lo rrez, J., Esteban, M.D., Matutano, C., 2014. Uncertainties in the
design of support structures and foundations for offshore wind turbines.
Renew. Energy 63, 125e132.
Nguyen, T.H., Prinz, A., Friisø, T., Nossum, R., Tyapin, I., 2013. A framework for data
integration of offshore wind farms. Renew. Energy 60, 150e161.
Oh, K.Y., Kim, J.Y., Lee, J.S., Ryu, K.W., 2012. Wind resource assessment around
Korean Peninsula for feasibility study on 100 MW class offshore wind farm.
Renew. Energy 42, 217e226.
O'Keeffe, A., Haggett, C., 2012. An investigation into the potential barriers facing the
development of offshore wind energy in Scotland: case study e firth of forth
offshore wind farm. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 3711e3721.
Pantaleo, A., Pellerano, A., Ruggiero, F., Trovato, M., 2005. Feasibility study of
offshore wind farms: an application to Puglia region. Sol. Energy 79, 321e331.
Perveen, R., Kishor, N., Mohanty, S.R., 2014. Off-shore wind farm development:
present status and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29, 780e792.
Pourebrahim, Sh, Hadipour, M., Mokhtar, M.B., Mohamed, Mohd Ibrahim, Hj, 2010.
Analytic network process for criteria selection in sustainable coastal land use
planning. Ocean Coast. Manag. 53 (9), 544e551.
Pourebrahim, Sharareh, Hadipour, Mehrdad, Mokhtar, Mazlin Bin,
Taghavi, Shahabaldin, 2014. Application of VIKOR and fuzzy AHP for
conservation priority assessment in coastal areas: case of Khuzestan district.
Iran. Ocean Coast. Manag. 98, 20e26.
Rehman, S., Ahmad, A., Al-Hadhrami, L.M., 2011. Development and economic
assessment of a grid connected 20 MW installed capacity wind farm. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 833e838.
Reubens, J.T., De Rijcke, M., Degraer, S., Vincx, M., 2014. Diel variation in feeding and
movement patterns of juvenile Atlantic cod at offshore wind farms. J. Sea Res.
85, 214e221.
Ryu, J., et al., 2011. A resilience-based approach for comparing expert preferences
across two large-scale coastal management programs. J. Environ. Manage. 92,
92e101.
Salcedo-Sanz, S., Gallo-Marazuela, D., Pastor-Sa nchez, A., Carro-Calvo, L., Portilla-
Figueras, A., Prieto, L., 2013. Evolutionary computation approaches for real
offshore wind farm layout: a case study in northern Europe. Expert Syst. Appl.
40, 6292e6297.
Schillings, C., Wanderer, T., Cameron, L., Wal, J.T.V.D., Jacquemin, J., Veum, K., 2012.
A decision support system for assessing offshore wind energy potential in the
North Sea. Energy Policy 49, 541e551.
Sulaiman, O.O., Magee, A., Bahrain, Z., Kader, A.S.A., Maimun, A., Pauzi, A.G., Wan
Nick, W.B., Othman, K., 2013. Mooring analysis for very large offshore aqua-
culture ocean plantation floating structure. Ocean Coast. Manage. 80, 80e88.
Tong, K.C., 1998. Technical and economic aspects of a floating offshore wind farm.
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 74e76, 399e410.
Tzeng, G.-H., Chiang, C.-H., Li, C.-W., 2007. Evaluating intertwined effects in ele-
arning programs: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and
DEMATEL. Expert Syst. Appl. 32 (4), 1028e1044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2006.02.004.
Veigas, M., Iglesias, G., 2013. Wave and offshore wind potential for the island of
Tenerife. Energy Convers. Manag. 76, 738e745.
Vepa, R., 2013. Dynamic Modeling, Simulation and Control of Energy Generation.
Springer-Verlag, London.
Wang, J.J., Jing, Y.Y., Zhang, C.F., 2010. Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid
in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 13,
2263e2278.
Wieczorek, A.J., Negro, S.O., Harmsen, R., Heimeriks, G.J., Luo, L., Hekkert, M.P., 2013.
A review of the European offshore wind innovation system. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 26, 294e306.
Wongthong, Panwad, Harvey, Nick, 2014. Integrated coastal management and
sustainable tourism: a case study of the reef-based SCUBA dive industry from
Thailand. Ocean Coast. Manag. 95, 138e146.
WuWW, 2012. Segmenting critical factors for successful knowledge management
implementation using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Appl. Soft Comput. 12,
527e535.
www.Persiangulfstudies.com.
Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338e353.
Zhixin, W., Chuanwen, J., Qian, A., Chengmin, W., 2009. The key technology of
offshore wind farm and its new development in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 13, 216e222.