JCLP Owe 2022

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/358905646
A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process-based analysis for prioritization of barriers

to offshore wind energy
Article in Journal of Cleaner Production · February 2022

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131111
CITATIONS READS
6 173
3 authors:
Dr. Tarun Dhingra Anita Sengar

Jaipuria Institute of Management Noida University of Petroleum & Energy Studies
74 PUBLICATIONS 317 CITATIONS 16 PUBLICATIONS 56 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Shambhu Sajith
University of Petroleum & Energy Studies
10 PUBLICATIONS 32 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Regulation and public utility behaviour View project
Asset maintenance policy formulation and practice in a large gas utility of India View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Shambhu Sajith on 04 March 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Cleaner Production 345 (2022) 131111
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process-based analysis for prioritization of

barriers to offshore wind energy
Tarun Dhingra a, Anita Sengar b, *, Shambhu Sajith b
a
Fortune Institute of International Business, New Delhi, India
b
School of Business, University of Petroleum & Energy Studies, Dehradun, India
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Handling editor: Kathleen Aviso Offshore wind energy is an essential component of the climate system and plays a crucial role in addressing
climate change. India has a coastline of seven thousand kilometres and a National offshore wind energy policy;
Keywords: however, the installed capacity of offshore wind energy is yet to start, signalling the existence of significant
Barriers barriers. The specific objective of this study is to develop a framework for identifying and categorizing the
Offshore wind energy
barriers to the growth of offshore wind energy in India. The study prioritizes these barriers using a multi-criteria
Fuzzy AHP
decision-making approach and sensitivity analysis for robustness. Barriers listed in the technical category
emerged through analysis as the significant barriers to the growth of offshore wind energy in India, which in
cludes grid-connection challenges, inadequate technology, lack of servicing and maintenance facilities, inade
quate testing and commissioning, cable installation challenges, lack of energy storage, and lack of offshore wind
zones. Financial barriers are categorized as the second most crucial barrier: initial capital, credit accessibility,
inadequate subsidies, power pricing scheme, immature offshore engineering market, insurance, and imperfect
feed-in tariff mechanism. It is followed by social, institutional, geographical, and supply chain barriers. Regu
latory and political barriers stand on the last rank and have the most negligible influence on offshore wind energy
in India.
1. Introduction Gujarat coasts. The Government of India (GoI) notified the “National
offshore wind energy policy” as per the Gazette Notification October
The role of wind energy in renewable energy (henceforth RE) has 2015, the installed capacity of OWE is yet to start, signalling the exis
received increased attention across several disciplines in recent years tence of significant barriers (Kumar et al., 2021). Previous studies
(Kandpal and Dhingra, 2021). Recent developments in offshore wind demonstrate a consistent and robust presence of challenges or barriers in
energy (now OWE) have led to a renewed focus on the relationship taking OWE in India (Mani and Dhingra, 2013a). It has been argued that
between renewable energy and climate change (Mello et al., 2020). there are significant barriers to OWE growth, but most of those studies
OWE is an essential component of the climate system and plays a crucial have been done in part, so there is no comprehensive study (Aswani
role in addressing climate change (Browning and Lenox, 2020). The past et al., 2021). One study by Govindan & Shankar (Govindan and Shankar,
decade has seen the rapid development of OWE in installation and 2016), although old, investigated the barriers of OWE in India. Still, it
research (Lu et al., 2020). The total global OWE capacity was at 35.5 GW was carried out at the onset of the ‘National offshore wind energy policy’
as of 2020. United Kingdom dominated this with 10.42 GW (29%), by GOI. It found only 12 barriers in the literature, although the extant
China with 9.99 GW (28%), and Germany with 7.68 GW (22%). The top literature suggests seven categories of barriers, including 46 sub bar
three countries form more than 75% of global OWE installed capacity, riers. Therefore, what we know about OWE’s barriers is (in large part)
followed by the Netherlands, Belgium, and Denmark, contributing 2.61 based on an outdated study, no study or listing of various barriers here
GW, 2.26 GW, and 1.70 GW, respectively (Lee and Zhao, 2021). and there, but no in-depth study is available (Umoh and Lemon, 2020).
India has a coastline of 7516.6 km, 5422.6 km of coastline around In the literature on OWE, the relative importance of growth (installed
the mainland, and 1197 km of Indian islands. Preliminary assessments capacity) of OWE has been subject to considerable discussion (Wu et al.,
have indicated prospects of development of OWE in Tamil Nadu and 2018). However, there has been little agreement on what constitutes
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tarun.dhingra@fiib.edu.in (T. Dhingra), asengar@ddn.upes.ac.in (A. Sengar), ssajith@ddn.upes.ac.in (S. Sajith).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131111
Received 13 July 2021; Received in revised form 21 February 2022; Accepted 22 February 2022
Available online 28 February 2022
0959-6526/© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
T. Dhingra et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 345 (2022) 131111
barriers, their classification, and relative prioritization (Burke et al., Table 1

2019). There is a notable paucity of empirical research that seek to List of factors affecting Offshore Wind Energy growth.
identify & prioritize barriers of OWE in India (Diógenes et al., 2020), S Barrier Specific Factors Reference
although GOI target installation of RE power is 450 GW by 2030 to meet No. Category Barrier
climate commitments and energy security (Dawn et al., 2019). No pre Code
vious study has addressed the question of “Why, despite the national 1 Technical TB1 Grid-connection Koldby and Hyttinen
offshore wind energy policy, there has been little or no installation of Barriers challenges (2009)
OWE.” To date (however), no comprehensive study has provided TB2 Inadequate (Willis et al., 2018;
technology Zamzoum et al., 2020)
empirical evidence of the identification and prioritization of OWE bar TB3 Lack of servicing (Leira, 2017), (Paik,
riers in India. The central thesis is that the barriers to OWE growth in and maintenance 2019)
India must be identified, categorized, and prioritized. facilities
This study sets out to investigate the following: TB4 Inadequate Yang et al. (2014)
testing and
commissioning
• The specific objective of this study is to develop a framework for TB5 Cable installation (Smudde, 2018), (
identifying and categorizing the factors and sub-factors of the growth challenges Perveen et al., 2014), (
of OWE in India. Sarker and Faiz, 2017)
• Prioritize these barriers using a multi-criteria decision-making TB6 Lack of energy (Zhao et al., 2015), (
storage Fan et al., 2016)
approach (MCDM) and apply the Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process TB7 Lack of Offshore (Hou et al., 2016), (Ou
(FAHP). wind Zones et al., 2018)
• Contribute to the theoretical and practical implications of such TB8 Uncertainties on (Bento and Fontes,
barriers. future foundation 2019),(Wu et al., 2019)
technology choice
as turbine sizes
The specific questions underpinning the research are as follows: are evolving
quickly.
Q1- What are the different barriers to OWE growth in India? 2 Financial FB1 Initial Capital (Gonzalez-Rodriguez,
Q2- What is the classification of those barriers? Barriers 2017),
FB2 Credit Tseng et al. (2017)
Q3 - What is the rank and priority of those barriers for OWE?
accessibility
FB3 Inadequate (Mani and Dhingra,
The approach to empirical research adopted for this study was the subsidies 2013a, 2013b, 2013a)
literature review followed by initial exploratory interviews with mix FB4 Power pricing Valpy et al. (2017)
scheme
population of regulators, developers, consultants, researchers, and top
FB5 Immature James and Ros (2015)
professionals of wind energy firms in India. Based on the extensive offshore
literature review and valuable responses from specialists, the final list of engineering
barriers and sub-categories was made. The presence of the multiple market
barriers and their sub-categories means that it is a multi-criteria deci FB6 Insurance Gatzert and Kosub
(2016)
sion-making (MCDM) problem. Thus, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
FB7 The imperfect (Blanco, 2009), (Mani
(Abdel-Basset et al., 2021) MCDM method is used to measure and rank feed-in tariff and Dhingra, 2013b), (
the barriers (Abramic et al., 2021). A sensitivity analysis was also used to mechanism Thapar et al., 2018)
test this methodology for robustness (Zhou and Yang, 2020). FB8 High LCOE (Myhr et al., 2014), (
Hou et al., 2017), (
The study presented here is one of the first investigations to examine
Aldersey-Williams and
in detail barriers identification, categorization, and prioritization of Rubert, 2019), (Lerch
OWE in India, especially when no significant installation occurred after et al., 2018)
introducing the policy in 2015. This research complements an earlier 3 Regulatory RPB1 Institutional (Künneke et al., 2015),
study (Mani and Dhingra, 2013a) in which critical factors of Offshore and Political regulatory (Willsteed et al., 2018)
Barriers Framework
wind energy policy were considered, and critique of offshore wind en
RPB2 Political (Tsouri et al., 2021), (R.
ergy policies of the UK and Germany was carried out to enumerate the commitment and S. Aswani et al., 2021) (
lessons for India. The novelty of the study is also extended towards consensus O’Sullivan, 2021)
contributing to the knowledge of barriers in the Indian OWE sector and RPB3 Bureaucratic Colmenar-Santos et al.
permit (2016)
their significance in hindering the progress of the sector after the Na
procedures
tional Offshore Wind Energy (NOWE) policy is framed. RPB4 Entry Barriers (Kota et al., 2015)
The study has been organized in the following way, Section 2 reviews RPB5 Imperfect Manwell et al. (2010)
the literature on identifying and ranking OWE barriers. Section 3 out relevant
lines the research methodology adopted by AHP Fuzzy and the selection standards
RPB6 Insufficient Mani and Dhingra
of a specific FAHP method. Section 4 brings about the result & discus
financial policy (2013c)
sion, analysis of the FAHP. Section 5 covers conclusions and support
implications. RPB7 Inadequate wind- Mani and Dhingra
targeted policies (2013a)
RPB8 Enabling business Barradale (2010)
2. Literature review
models—e.g.,
Corporate PPAs
The challenges that Offshore Wind Energy (OWE) faces in India for RPB9 Electricity Woodman and Mitchell
its growth are collated from previous studies. The list of challenges is suppliers’ (2011)
shown in Table 1. The identified challenges are categorized into seven compliance with
the renewable
categories; technical, financial, regulatory and political, social, supply obligation
chain, institutional and geographical. Each of these categories has a list 4 Social Barriers SB1 Public awareness Haggett (2011)
of sub-factors, as listed below. The final list consists of 46 sub-factors (continued on next page)
spread across seven categories. Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
2
Table 1 (continued ) Table 2

S Barrier Specific Factors Reference
Previous literature on Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) in the Offshore
No. Category Barrier Wind Energy sector.
Code REFERENCE CRITERIA COUNTRY METHODOLOGY
SB2 Lack of social O’Keeffe and Haggett (Kolios et al., 2010) Selection of EU TOPSIS
acceptance (2012) support structures
SB3 Visual and noise (Kaldellis and (Mytilinou et al., Location Selection UK TOPSIS
impacts Apostolou, 2017), ( 2018)
Aswani et al., 2021) (Fetanat and site selection of Iran ANP, DEMATEL,
SB4 Environmental Leung and Yang (2012) Khorasaninejad, offshore wind farm ELECTRE
protection 2015) (OWF)
SB5 Lack of Hau (2013) (Collu et al., 2014) Design of Floating UK TOPSIS
experience and OWT
practice (Abdel-Basset et al., Location Selection Egypt AHP, PROMETHEE
5 Supply Chain SCB1 Unavailable (Kaldellis and 2021)
Barriers heavy-duty Apostolou, 2017), ( (Shafiee and Kolios, Operational Risks UK ANP
supply chain Sarker and Faiz, 2017) 2015)
technology (Güner et al., 2021) Sustainability of Turkey AHP
SCB2 Unreliable (Halvorsen-Weare OWT
transportation et al., 2013), (Ma et al., 2020) OWT selection China ANP
facilities of (Lo et al., 2021) Site selection China grey DANP
Turbines/Turbine (Deveci et al., 2020) Site Selection Ireland Interval type-2
vessel carriers fuzzy sets
SCB3 Field assembly, (Page et al., 2017), ( (Wu et al., 2020) Site Selection China PROMETHEE, ANP
maintenance, and Thomsen, 2014) (Narayanamoorthy OWT Selection India NWHF-MAUT,
operations et al., 2021) Process NWHF-CRITIC
suppliers
SCB4 Average port (Akbari et al., 2017;
facilities for Dinwoodie et al., 2015)
within small time frames, causing grid instability. Most of the onshore
components
assembly.
wind turbines employed in India are induction generators that operate
SCB5 Lack of facility for Irawan et al. (2018) asynchronously and are considered inefficient reactive power control
pre-assembly capability. Previous studies have ensured the optimization of OWE
SCB6 Tooling and Pacheco et al. (2017) systems using non-linear models and controls systems (Bossoufi et al.,
facilities at the
2020, 2021). The wind turbine industry in India is based on European
yards are not
aligned to serial design and technology, and there is a possibility of a mismatch between
production of Indian manufactured turbines and imported components (Valpy et al.,
large monopiles 2017). The frequency of wind turbine failure is on the higher side for
and serial OWE, requiring excellent servicing and maintenance (Cevasco et al.,
production of
jacket
2021). Offshore wind turbines (OWT) demands testing for fatigue design
foundations. and long-term corrosion behaviours since they are exposed to air,
6 Institutional IB1 Lack of skilled HR Igwe and Howell seawater, and salt sprays (Mehmanparast and Vidament, 2021).
Barriers (2015) The cable routing should be laid with caution to avoid intersection
IB2 Lack of Kern et al. (2014)
with waterways since, under emergency, ships may take immediate
Institutional
coordination anchoring risking cable damages (Jiang et al., 2019). An approach of
IB3 Lack of Wieczorek et al. (2015) offshore wind zoning using geographical information system (GIS) along
Institutional the cable route may reduce the risk of damage to submarine cables
capacity (Obane et al., 2021).
IB4 Lack of (Wieczorek et al.,
infrastructure 2015), (Adedipe et al.,
2016)
IB5 Red tape and (Réthoré et al., 2009) 2.2. Financial barriers
Corruption
7 Geographical GB1 Shipping lines Kaldellis and Apostolou The Indian OWE industry is faced with challenges of limited income,
Barriers (2017)
GB2 Marine Protected (Qu et al., 2021), (
regulations governing project funding, and funds availability (Al-Su
region Sedlar et al., 2019) maiti et al., 2020). To overcome a large number of financial, institu
GB3 Fishing lines (Y. Zhang et al., 2017) tional, technical, market, and other barriers to wind power, many
GB4 Depth of the Kim and Lim (2017) countries have employed policy instruments like capital subsidies, tax
Ocean and
incentives, feed-in tariffs, tradable energy certificates, grid access gua
uneven
topography rantees, and mandatory standards (Mani and Dhingra, 2013c). Feed in-
GB5 Natural Disasters (Buchana and Tariffs (FIT) policy and policy design elements; tariff price and contract
McSharry, 2019), ( duration, impacts installed OWE capacity. Any variation on the FIT can
Rueda-Bayona et al., cause uncertainty in investments (García-Álvarez et al., 2017). The
2019)
mechanism of e-reverse auctions is rapidly replacing Feed-in-Tariff (FIT)
to discover the lowest tariff in the Indian renewable energy sector.
(MCDM) to arrive at an optimal solution is not alien for OWE sector. However, the e-reverse auctions proved to be cost-effective (Bose and
Table 2 lists the previous studies on OWE using MCDM globally. Sarkar, 2019). Due to the peak demand surge for electricity in India,
there is a need to expose customers to real-time pricing, alter their usage,
and mitigate the risks (Shen et al., 2015). ‘One price fits all’ policy may
2.1. Technical barriers not be a practical approach in India, which increases the uncertainty of
the price set for OWE (Chindarkar and Goyal, 2019).
The power output from Offshore Wind Energy (OWE) varies widely Global OWE sees a rapidly declining levelised cost of electricity
3
(LCOE), driven by the competitive installed costs and advanced tech handling between the production and installation phases. OWT comes
nology in areas with excellent natural wind resources (Yao et al., 2021). across as onshore transportation, port handling, and shipping
On the other hand, India has high LCOE is a critical indicator for policy consuming considerable energy and cost (Hrouga and Bostel, 2021).
and decision-makers to compare actual costs of OWE with conventional There is a need for supply chain projects to be designed specifically to
energy generation and draft policies to improve the growth of the sector meet the offshore environment’s demands (Wu et al., 2019).
(Ram et al., 2018). The risks that affect OWE have amplified; the Offshore wind energy maintenance and operation incurs a consid
availability of insurance against catastrophe, business interruption, and erable cost, poor accessibility, and reduced reliability of OWE systems
technical failures give the investors an active risk mitigation technique (Li et al., 2020). These challenges require a sizeable skilled workforce
(Gatzert and Kosub, 2016). along with turbine technicians (Kandrot et al., 2020). Installation of
offshore wind turbines comprises massive challenges arising from the
2.3. Regulatory and political dynamic marine environment affecting the logistical process (Beinke
et al., 2020). The role of communication plays a vital part in maintaining
Effective governance is vital for developing OWE, especially in its cost-efficiency and building coordination between partners involved in
early stages. There is a need for inter-ministerial collaboration and re OWE supply chain (Akbari et al., 2017). Blockchain is a new technology
lations between relevant agencies for the progress of OWE through deployed in OWE supply chain to gain coordination among the suppliers
policies (Sunila et al., 2019). Institutional issues have influenced the (Keivanpour et al., 2019).
industry in defining the role of offshore transmission owners and sharing
costs and benefits within the network. In India, the contestation around 2.6. Institutional barriers
wind power developers and the local activists’ protestors has signifi
cantly influenced the political commitment process towards sustainable There exists a lack of coordination among the national and interna
energy (Lakhanpal, 2019). Political commitment towards restructuring tional authorities in inspection, energy regulations, and maritime reg
the electricity sector to integrate wind energy into the energy mix can ulations in India, challenging the establishment of OWE sector (Charles
diminish since it calls for political and economic institutions (Sunila Rajesh Kumar et al., 2021). The uneven nature of the institutional
et al., 2019). A significant roadblock in accessing bureaucratic permits apparatus of the power sector serves as a significant challenge in energy
in the grid and turbine development, distribution, and space acquisition policy-making in India (Tagotra, 2018). India’s investment in institu
have affected the growth of wind energy in India (Satpute and Kumar, tional capacity can overcome the backlog of infrastructure re
2021). quirements, and this should be accompanied by adequate technology
Policy variables, Feed-in tariffs (FIT), Power Purchase Agreements transfer and diffusion (Dutta et al., 2016). Advanced offshore in
(PPA), and Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO), appeared to be sig frastructures such as meshed grids (interconnected power grids to
nificant factors that affect the growth of wind energy in India (Thapar several countries) are recommended to optimize the grid and integrate
et al., 2018). To increase offshore wind deployment in resource-rich OWE (Sunila et al., 2019). For offshore wind energy to play a significant
Indian coast would require policy instruments suiting their energy re role in green transformation, the energy sector needs to upscale its
sources, economic profile, and power market (Mani and Dhingra, infrastructure. However, the challenge is the time required for scaling
2013b). Along with FIT, PPA, and RPO, wind energy needs specific up; India needs to improve decision-making and practices (Willsteed
policies that would encourage its growth in India (Das et al., 2020). et al., 2018).
Wind turbine-specific policies will act as a crucial ingredient in India’s OWE sector faces the challenge of a lack of trained personnel
improving the investments in the offshore wind sector with the wide in fundamental technical capabilities, turbine foundation construction,
variety of OWT technology (Monopile, jackets, advanced jacket, and specialization to design, installation of the turbine, operations and
floating OWT) available to meet the testing marine conditions (Wu et al., maintenance, and maintenance of submarine electrical cables (Charles
2019). Rajesh Kumar et al., 2021). Previous studies have also proved that
corruption in India leads to environmental degradation by reducing the
2.4. Social barriers development and consumption of energy from renewable sources (Sinha
et al., 2019). Mitigating the corruption risks can tackle the challenges of
In a developing country, onshore wind energy is preferred over new technology adoption like OWE (Lee et al., 2020).
offshore due to the legal system’s cost, legal system, and public aware
ness (Ubay, 2021). Awareness and certainty of impacts are the most 2.7. Geographical barriers
significant drivers of support level, followed by perceived impacts
(Gonyo et al., 2021). The quest for energy independence has changed The zoning of OWF will help reduce the conflict and identify the best
the public opposition in Europe for OWE to support (Firestone et al., suitable location with an assessment of conflict based on factors like
2012). shipping density, distance from shore, and local concerns regarding
Offshore wind farms significantly impact the environment; cable, seascape (Obane et al., 2021). Offshore wind farms (OWF) significantly
platforms, turbines, grids, substations, and dredging impact underwater impact risk to marine species during migration and breeding periods
flora and fauna (Kaldellis and Apostolou, 2017). At the same time, the (Pfeiffer et al., 2021). It is vital to keep OWF away from marine pro
impact of visual and noise impacts on the local community is limited for tected regions since the installation, construction, operation, mainte
OWE compared to onshore wind farms. The offshore wind farms (OWF) nance, and decommission of OWT can affect the marine ecosystem with
should be farther away from the shore, diminishing visual and noise sound waves, electromagnetic field effect from power cables, changes in
impacts in the quest for better wind resources (Thompson et al., 2013). water quality, and changes to ocean dynamics due to energy modifica
tions (Oh et al., 2018).
2.5. Supply chain barriers The increase in OWF in European waters has resulted in the loss of
space for the fisheries sector. Mitigating the loss for the fisheries sector is
The high cost of using state-of-the-art technology in various stages of a crucial co-location solution for marine spatial planning (Hooper et al.,
the life cycle of bottom fixed OWT (installation, maintenance, and 2015). However, the ecosystem maturity is expected to increase after the
decommission) is a barrier for investors. The scarcity of OWT installa functioning of OWE (Raoux et al., 2019), while the fishing communities
tion equipment in the North Sea region forces the investors to look for will end up having a diminished catch due to the loss of space to OWFs
safe and less costly (Gudmestad, 2020). The large wind turbines with a (Stelzenmüller et al., 2021). The selection of the OWT foundation is
height of 150 m and a diameter of 120 m can challenge logistics and based on the depth of the sea, seabed surface, and topography (Kim and
4
Lim, 2017). In the fuzzy AHP method, data collection is done through a ques
tionnaire having pairwise comparison using a triangular fuzzy conver
3. Research methodology sion shown in Table 3. In-depth interviews were conducted for data
collection. The context and objective of the study, along with the details
The research methodology used for this study that identifies and of barriers and their categories were explained to all the respondents
prioritizes the critical barriers to OWE is presented in Fig. 1. before data collection using a questionnaire (Lam and Zhao, 1998). The
AHP surveys use a small sample size because it leads to inconsistencies
• Step 1: Identification and categorization of barriers to OWE by re when a large sample size is involved (Cheng and Li, 2002). Hence, based
view of literature on the judgemental sampling, forty-nine experts were contacted for the
data collection. However, interviews could be performed only with
The major barriers to OWE are identified using an extensive litera forty-four experts due to their unavailability. To ensure a wider
ture review in the global context. response, responses from a mixed population of regulators, developers,
consultants, researchers, and top professionals of wind energy firms in
• Step 2: Exploratory interviews with mix population of regulators, India were collected. Judgemental sampling was used in this study
developers, consultants, researchers, and top professionals of wind because it chooses the most suitable and potential candidate to answer
energy firms in India to finalize barriers identified in the above step the research question (Marshall, 1996).
followed by preparation of a hierarchy model for prioritization
• Step 4: Analysis using FAHP technique
These barriers are further verified in this step and made suitable for
the Indian context by conducting exploratory interviews with pro The FAHP technique which is a multi-criteria decision-making
fessionals in wind energy firms, regulators, consultants, wind farm de approach reduces the fuzziness of the data involved in identifying the
velopers, and academic researchers in India. key barriers to OWE in India. In this technique, weights of all the indi
Exploratory interviews are flexible and involve talking with re vidual barriers and barrier categories were calculated using triangular
spondents in their natural settings to explore issues, as the situation fuzzy numbers assigned by the respondents. These weights specify the
requires (Kotler and Armstrong, 1987). The study conducted thirty-six relative importance of each barrier among the individual barriers and
interviews with mix population of regulators, developers, consultants, barrier categories.
researchers, and top professionals of wind energy firms in India. In
terviews were conducted to finalize and validate the barriers identified
in Step 1. It was then followed the preparation of hierarchy model for
prioritization. Data collection was done during April, May in the year Table 3
Assessment scale.
2021.
Interviews identified 46 barriers categorized into seven criteria. Semantic attributes Triangular fuzzy number
These criteria are technical, financial, regulatory and political, social, Absolute (4, 5, 6)
supply chain, institutional and geographical. Very Strong (3, 4, 5)
Fairly Strong (2, 3, 4)
Weak (1, 2, 3)
• Step 3: Questionnaire development and data collection Just equal (1, 1, 1)
Fig 1. Steps in research methodology.
5
• Step 5 : Reliability and validity check ⎧w −

⎪ a
⎪
⎪b−
⎪ a a≤w≤b
The triangulation method and peer briefing technique have been ⎨
μm (w) = c − wb≤w≤c (1)
used to improve the reliability and validity of this research (Lincoln and ⎪
⎪
⎪c− b Otherwise
Guba, 1985). ⎪
⎩
0
with -∞ < a ≤ b ≤ c ≤ ∞.
3.1. FAHP methodology
• Steps in the Fuzzy AHP process, as explained by Chang’s extent
AHP is a multi-criterion decision-making tool that uses both quan
analysis (Chang, 1996), are as follows:
titative as well as qualitative aspects of decision-making. It significantly
• Step 1: Calculation of Fuzzy synthetic extent value w.r.t. ith object
reduces the subjectivity of both interviewees and the researcher (Saaty,
(Zhu et al., 1999):
1990). The AHP technique reduces the complexity of decision-making
( )− 1
by breaking a problem into sub-problems and then comparing them ∑m ∑n ∑ m
on a one-to-one basis. It enables the decision-maker to prioritize the FNi = j

Pgi ⊗ j
Pgi , i = 1, 2, ……..n (2)
decisions and identify the best decision. j=i i=1 j=1
AHP’s foundation stone is the creation of a hierarchical framework. ( )

∑
m ∑
m ∑
m ∑
m
Making a hierarchy is a key step in AHP, yet there is no unique method Pjgi = P−ij , Pij , P+ i = 1, 2, ……..n (3)
for doing so. The construction of hierarchy is a top to down and multi-
ij
j=i j=i j=i j=i
level process that begins at the top and works its way down (Saaty
( )− [ ]
and Vargas, 1991). The elements of hierarchical levels are controlled on ∑
n ∑
m
1
1 1 1
a scale and magnitude that is consistent. The elements of the same hi Pjgi = ∑n ∑m +,
∑n ∑m , ∑n ∑m −
(4)
j=1 Pij j=1 Pij j=1 Pij
erarchy level must be linked to the structure’s other equivalent factors. i=1 j=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
The creation of an AHP hierarchy usually begins with a higher-level aim

and then breaks down into lower-level decision criteria. The number of • Step 2: Calculation of degree of possibility of the favourable position
hierarchical levels in every AHP model is determined by the complexity of each fuzzy synthetic extent value concerning each other.
of the problem and the degree of quantification for each of the elements.
AHP has been used across various studies related to prioritizing If P2 = (p−2 , p2 , p+
2 ) ≥ P1=(p1 , p1 , p1 ) then (P2 ≥ P1 = (x), μP2(y)]
− +
barriers, allocating resources, and cost-benefit analysis (Solangi et al., Where x and y represent membership values.
2019; Yang et al., 2019). Several authors have used this framework in
diverse areas, proving robust in many studies (Prakash and Barua, 2015, • Step 3: For each barrier category, define the minimum degree of
2016). However, there are various limitations associated with this possibility of superiority and calculate the weight vector.
technique since it uses absolute scale numbers for judgments and pri
orities and does not consider uncertainties associated with mapping a A convex fuzzy number is defined as follows,
respondent’s perception into numerical values (Sengar et al., 2014,
2020). Therefore, this technique is unsuitable for uncertain V (FN ≥ FN1, FN2 …FNK) = minV (FN ≥ FNi), i = 1, 2, … … k (5).
decision-making problems (Chan et al., 2008). To handle this problem of
d (FNi ) = minV (FN ≥ FNk ) = WB,i k = 1, 2, ……, n and k ∕

= I (6)
data vagueness, fuzzy logic is used. The fuzzy set theory helps deal with
the imprecision and uncertainties involved in the decision-making
process since it can handle data fuzziness (Fullér, 1991).
If (a, b, c) represents a triangular fuzzy number M and (μm (w)) Weights, WB,i of the factors are
represents the membership function, then a fuzzy number is represented ( ′ )
(7)
′ ′ ′
as mentioned in Fig. 2 (Chan et al., 2008). WB a WB1 , WB2 , ….., WBn T
• Step 4: After normalization, W′ shows priority weights.
(8)
′
WB a ( WB1 , WB2 , ….., WBn ) T
Studies by authors such as Buckley (1985), Zadeh (1965), and Klir
and Yuan (1995) provide a detailed explanation of the concepts of fuzzy
numbers, fuzzy sets, and fuzzy operations.
3.2. Calculation of weights of all barriers classified under various barrier

categories
The experts made a pairwise comparison of forty-six barriers classi

fied under seven barrier categories. They allotted triangular fuzzy
numbers as shown in Table 3. Comparison matrix of barrier categories is
Fig. 2. Triangular fuzzy number. P1 (p−1 , p1 , p+
1 ) and P2 (p2 , p2 , p2 ) are two
− + shown in Table 4.
triangular fuzzy numbers. Using Chang’s extent analysis (Chang, 1996), the weights of the
6
Table 4
Comparison matrix of barrier categories.
TB FB RPB SB SCB IB GB
TB (1, 1,1) (1, 1,1) (0.25, 0.33, 0.5) (1, 1,1) (0.25, 0.33, 0.5) (0.33, 0.5, 1) (1, 2, 3)
FB (1, 1,1) (1, 1, 1) (0.25, 0.33, 0.5) (1, 2, 3) (0.25, 0.33, 0.5) (0.33, 0.5, 1) (1, 2, 3)
RPB (2, 3, 4) (2, 3, 4) (1, 1, 1) (2, 3, 4) (2, 3, 4) (0.33, 0.5, 1) (0.33, 0.5, 1)
SB (1, 1,1) (0.33, 0.5, 1) (0.25, 0.33, 0.5) (1, 1, 1) (1, 2, 3) (1, 2, 3) (0.25, 0.33, 0.5)
SCB (2, 3, 4) (2, 3, 4) (0.25, 0.33, 0.5) (0.33, 0.5, 1) (1, 1, 1) (2, 3, 4) (1, 1,1)
IB (1, 2, 3) (1, 2, 3) (1, 2, 3) (0.33, 0.5, 1) (0.25, 0.33, 0.5) (1, 1, 1) (1, 2, 3)
GB (0.33, 0.5, 1) (0.33, 0.5, 1) (1, 2, 3) (2, 3, 4) (1, 1,1) (0.33, 0.5, 1) (1, 1, 1)
barriers and categories were calculated. technology choice as turbine sizes are evolving ranks highest locally.
Calculation of extent value of each barrier category (using equation The uncertain emergence of future OWE technology, lack of service fa
(2)): cility and absence of offshore zones by GOI is essential. Inadequate
FN(TB) = (3.50, 3.66, 4.00) ⊗ (89.00, 64.64, 44.30) − 1 = (0.04, 0.06, testing, commissioning, and inadequate technology challenge occupy
0.09) the following ranks in the technical barrier category. Due to specialized
FN(FB) = (3.50, 4.66, 6.00) ⊗ (89.00, 64.64, 44.30) − 1 = (0.04, 0.07, testing, commissioning, and inadequate technology, project cost esca
0.14) lates. It is a significant hurdle for OWE projects as, generally, testing and
FN(RPB) = (9.00, 13.00, 17.00) ⊗ (89.00, 64.64, 44.30) − 1 = (0.10, commissioning are done in rugged terrain, and inadequate technology
0.20, 0.38) adds to the problem. The other technical barrier ranked next in this
FN(SB) = (3.58, 4.83, 6.50) ⊗ (89.00, 64.64, 44.30) − 1 = (0.04, 0.07, category is lack of energy storage. The future of OWE is significantly
0.15) linked with battery storage as this combination has the potential to
FN(SCB) = (5.58, 7.83, 10.50) ⊗ (89.00, 64.64, 44.30) − 1 = (0.06, stabilize the power and prices of OWE (Fan et al., 2016).
0.12, 0.24) Grid-connection challenges are ranked next. It is still a burning issue
FN(IB) = (3.58, 6.83, 10.50) ⊗ (89.00, 64.64, 44.30) − 1 = (0.04, with OWE developer as large turbines, big wind farms and a significant
0.11, 0.24) distance from power system poses the obstacle. The cable installation
FN(GB) = (4.66, 7.00, 10.00) ⊗ (89.00, 64.64, 44.30) − 1 = (0.05, challenge is at the lowest order rank in technical barriers. It gets its
0.11, 0.23) importance from installing subsea cables, which are technically complex
Calculation of minimum value of each barrier category is calculated and need expensive monitoring, and could often be unusable by inhos
(using equations (6) and (7)): pitable conditions. Although technical barriers are the highest-ranked
barrier having eight sub-barriers, captivatingly none of these sub bar
m(TB) = minV(FN1 ≥ FNk) = 1 riers occupy the top seven global ranks except lack of servicing and
Similarly, m(FB) = 0.7671, m(RPB) = 0.2100, m(SB) = 0.7344, m maintenance facilities with a global rank of eight. So out of a total of 46
(SCB) = 0.2996, m(IB) = 0.5051, m(GB) = 0.4233 barriers, only one barrier under technical barriers falls into global rank
eight.
WBV = (1, 0.7671, 0.2100, 0.7344, 0.2996, 0.5051, 0.4233) T Financial barriers: It contains all the cash flow & credit-related
factors, which determine the financial feasibility and development of
Normalized weights of all barrier categories are mentioned as
OWE projects. The individual analysis puts economic barriers at the
follows:
second rank on overall barriers classification, and it plays a significant
WB = (0.2538, 0.1947, 0.0533, 0.1864, 0.0760, 0.1282, 0.1075) part in making the project viable. Local rank shows that high initial
capital is at the first position followed by the immature offshore engi
Similarly, the weights of all barriers classified under various barrier neering market because of rugged terrain & environment in creating
categories are calculated (shown in Table 5). The global weight of each OWE structure inside the sea. Comparatively, erecting the OWE project’s
barrier is calculated by multiplying its local weights with the weight of foundation and installation cost is significantly higher than the onshore
its respective category. wind energy. Interestingly, initial capital & immature offshore engi
neering market as major factors are ranked globally first and fourth.
4. Results and discussions Thus, these two combined mark their significant importance and add to
the development of OWE in India. The following barriers in the category
The first two questions aimed to answer different barriers and their are the high Levelized Cost of Electricity followed by inadequate sub
classification to OWE growth in India. Table 1 displays an overview of sidies. These two again make OWE a bit more unattractive as compared
various barrier and their classification like Technical, Financial, Regu to onshore wind energy (Ubay, 2021). The levelized Cost of Electricity
latory and Political, Social, Supply chain, Institutional and Geograph for OWE is 2–2.5 times more than the onshore, making it uncompetitive
ical. It is apparent from the table that the extant literature suggests seven (Aswani et al., 2021). Next in the rankings is the Power pricing scheme
categories of barriers, including 46 sub barriers. What stands out in this and insurance. The lack of a developed market for OWE makes the
table is the wide range of barriers available, categorized into seven power pricing scheme look relatively immature and negatively weighs
broad categories. the project’s feasibility. The increasing frequency of natural disasters
Barriers listed in the technical and financial category emerged also makes insurance a pivotal factor to cover the cost. Imperfect feed-in
through analysis as the significant barriers to the growth of the OWE in tariff mechanism and credit accessibility are found at least two ranking
India. It is followed by Regulatory and Political, Social, Supply chain, factors. All these factors contribute significantly to disturbing the
Institutional and Geographical barriers. Table 5 depicts the ranking of feasibility calculation of OWE project. Interestingly, apart from high
barriers to OWE, global Ranking, and local Ranking of all the individual initial capital and immature offshore engineering market, none of the
barriers across categories. factors under economic barriers falls into the top ten global ranked
Technical Barriers: Technical barriers are the top most significant barriers. The NOWE policy encourages Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)
barriers in establishing OWE as it poses the biggest challenges. Intra participation, international collaborations, and Public-Private Partner
technical barriers like Lack of servicing and maintenance facilities, Lack ship to support the development of OWE in India. The policy also states
of Offshore wind Zones, and uncertainties on future foundation extension of fiscal and financial incentives to OWE which are already
7
Table 5
Ranking of barriers to OWE.
Barriers Relative preference weight Relative rank Local weights Relative Ranking Global weights Global Ranking
1 TB 0.2538 1
TB1 0.0996 7 0.02529 17
TB2 0.1352 5 0.03432 12
TB3 0.1655 1 0.04199 8
TB4 0.1399 4 0.03552 11
TB5 0.0401 8 0.01019 32
TB6 0.1002 6 0.02542 16
TB7 0.1616 2 0.04102 9
TB8 0.1579 3 0.04007 10
2 FB 0.1947 2
FB1 0.3427 1 0.06673 1
FB2 0.0230 8 0.00447 42
FB3 0.1028 4 0.02001 21
FB4 0.0804 5 0.01565 27
FB5 0.2305 2 0.04488 4
FB6 0.0695 6 0.01353 30
FB7 0.0387 7 0.00753 38
FB8 0.1125 3 0.02190 20
3 RPB 0.0533 7
RPB1 0.1223 5 0.00652 40
RPB2 0.1087 6 0.00580 41
RPB3 0.0273 9 0.00145 46
RPB4 0.2217 1 0.01182 31
RPB5 0.1563 3 0.00833 37
RPB6 0.0413 7 0.00220 43
RPB7 0.0402 8 0.00214 44
RPB8 0.1241 4 0.00662 39
RPB9 0.158127 2 0.00843 36
4 SB 0.1864 3
SB1 0.2261 3 0.04215 6
SB2 0.2939 1 0.05478 2
SB3 0.2433 2 0.04536 3
SB4 0.0106 4 0.00197 45
SB5 0.2261 3 0.04215 7
5 SCB 0.0760 6
SCB1 0.1151 5 0.00875 34
SCB2 0.1151 5 0.00875 35
SCB3 0.1173 4 0.00892 33
SCB4 0.2096 2 0.01594 26
SCB5 0.1986 3 0.01510 28
SCB6 0.2444 1 0.01859 22
6 IB 0.1282 4
IB1 0.3495 1 0.04482 5
IB2 0.1325 4 0.01699 25
IB3 0.1983 3 0.02543 15
IB4 0.2120 2 0.02719 13
IB5 0.1076 5 0.01380 29
7 GB 0.1075 5
GB1 0.1612 5 0.01732 24
GB2 0.1639 4 0.01761 23
GB3 0.2175 2 0.02338 18
GB4 0.2096 3 0.02252 19
GB5 0.2478 1 0.02662 14
available for onshore wind to bring the cost down (NMRE, 2015). Our project. Another highlight is that public awareness and lack of experi
results emphasize the need to include effective financial incentives to ence and practice have the same weightage, sharing the third rank in
drive the cost down since initial capital is still acting as a major barrier to social barriers. Environmental protection has a minor influence on OWE
the growth of OWE in India. Our result complements the report by the in social barriers. These two have a global rank of sixth and seventh,
Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) indicating the Gujarat OWE respectively, making social barriers have the highest global rank
project hasn’t progressed after 2018 largely due to the high initial contribution. All but one sub barriers out of five falls into the top ten
capital and the lack of financial support (GWEC, 2021). global ranks marking the rising role of social acceptance of the project in
Social barriers: Social barriers stand in third place, hindering the modern times. However, social barriers were given limited preferences
growth of OWE, and it majorly includes the human and environmental in the NOWE policy. The state governments may monitor the develop
dimension of the OWE project acceptability. Social acceptance has a ment along the coast and are encouraged to add grid infrastructure and
vital role in the growth of any new technology-based projects involving planning of logistics to their State Action Plan (NMRE, 2015). Adding
people’s acceptance, availability of experience and practice, and envi solutions to tackle social barriers would diminish the uncertainty sur
ronmental impact related to it (Gonyo et al., 2021). Out of five social sub rounding OWE operation in India.
barriers, social acceptance stands at first rank, followed by visual and Institutional Barriers: Institutional barriers that gathered the
noise impacts. What emerges out outstandingly is that these two occupy fourth rank primarily comprises the availability of institutions providing
a global rank second and third, emphasizing the vital role social a smooth supply of human resources, infrastructure, capacity, coordi
acceptance, including voice and noise, can play in the success of a nation, and corruption-free project clearance and execution. Lack of
8
skilled human resources followed by lack of infrastructure is ranked first constraint. Enabling business models (PPA) and Institutional regulatory
and second, respectively contributing to the institutional barriers. The framework is placed in the next subsequent local rank. Power Purchase
creation of skilled manpower and employment in OWE sector is one of Agreement (PPA) between generators and state governments emerged as
the main objectives of NOWE policy (NMRE, 2015). Our results signify an important milestone for the development of Renewable energy in
the need to further direct resources to build skilled manpower for India’s India, but it is largely absent in the case of OWE. Due to continuous
OWE sector. These two are responsible for stumbling the growth of OWE reduction of RE prices due to technology up gradation, players and
in India and the lack of skilled HR even rank fifth in global rank, reverse auction participation had created a situation when the state
underlining the importance of well-equipped human resources as an government rescinded the PPA. Lack of inter-ministerial collaboration
essential aspect of OWE. Lack of Institutional capacity and coordination and coordination between appropriate agencies thwart the progress of
gets the rank third and fourth, respectively, placing the role of institu OWE. Political commitment and widespread consensus integration of
tional linkage and capacity for smooth conduct of OWE business. The wind energy into the energy mix call for political commitment to
least influencing sub barrier is bureaucratic red tape and corruption that restructuring the electricity sector. Since the present Modi Government
can dent the flow of initiative, zeal, and capital towards large complex has taken ambitious goals and Steps to do that thus, it is having a lower
OWE projects. rank (sixth). Insufficient financial policy support and inadequate wind-
Geographical Barriers: As occupying the fifth rank affects the OWE, targeted policies come next. The system of e-reverse auctions has
natural disaster is first. Naturally, OWE, owing to its geographic loca accentuated discovering the lowest tariff as it hits the project’s financial
tion, is significantly prone to natural disasters and extreme climatic viability. Inadequate targeted policies related to a variety of OWE
events like cyclones, earthquakes. It exacerbates the assessment of technologies create obstacles in attracting investment. Bureaucratic
windstorm risk to OWF developers and brings attention to insurance for permit procedures least influence the OWE in this category. All sub-
mitigating the risk. Fishing lines and depth of the ocean and uneven barriers of this category also occupy the least global rank, making this
topography follows natural disaster as rank two and three respectively. category the least influencing category.
The NOWE policy takes into consideration the impact of the project on
the livelihood of fishing communities and efforts are taken to keep out of 5. Sensitivity analysis
the fishing grounds (NMRE, 2015). The fisheries sector and OWE have
traded off relationships with each other as policies favouring one lead to Sensitivity analysis is used in this study to validate the proposed
the loss of others. The depth of the ocean and uneven topography dic framework and the technique’s robustness. As shown in Table 5, the
tates the selection of the OWT foundation as the depth of the sea, seabed technical barrier has the highest ranking with the highest weight among
surface, and topography influence the structural decision. The other all the barrier categories. Any change in the technical barrier can impact
geographical barrier ranked next in this category is a protected marine the ranking of other barriers as well. Sensitivity analysis is used to
region. OWE has a significant influence on marine ecosystems, and it measure the impact of technical barriers on the other barrier categories,
poses a risk to marine species during migration and breeding periods due also the barriers listed in those categories. As shown in Table 6, the
to sound & electromagnetic waves. Recently there is an increasing weight of the technical barrier was varied from 0.1 to 0.9. An impact was
concern about the marine ecosystem being influenced by OWE (Deveci also seen on other barrier categories. The sensitivity run shows that the
et al., 2020). financial barrier has the highest impact on varying the value of technical
Supply chain barriers: These barriers are next on the priority to barriers. This analysis was also done to see the impact on the 46 barriers
OWE generation augmented by the availability of tools, physical & port listed under seven barrier categories. When the value of TB is 0.1, 0.2,
facilities, lack of field assembly & maintenance, unreliable trans and 0.3, FB1 acquired the first rank, SB2 was on the second rank,
portation facilities, and unavailability of heavy-duty supply chain whereas RPB3 on the 46th rank. When the value of TB was 0.4, TB3
technology. Tooling and facilities at the yards are not aligned to serial acquired first rank, TB7 on second, and TB8 on the third rank (see
production of large monopiles & jacket foundations are at local rank Table 7, Fig. 3).
one. This problem is significant, as it is feasible for floating turbines at Interestingly, RPB3 and SB4 maintained the last and second last rank
present (Collu et al., 2014). Average port facilities for component as and had no impact on the technical barrier’s value. Therefore, it can be
sembly and lack of facility for pre-assembly are respectively ranked next concluded that technical barriers are one of the most critical barriers to
locally. Dynamic and turbulent marine environments affect the logistical OWE among all seven important barrier categories and hence require a
process of component assembly. Pre-assembly of components for tur particular focus on them by companies while initiating any project based
bines can reduce the cost and time, but lack of facility hampers it. Field on offshore wind energy. The current NOWE policy fails to provide a
assembly, maintenance, and operations, suppliers, which is at the local clear framework for planning and delivering OWE grid infrastructure
rank fourth largely, determine cost, accessibility, and reliability of OWE (NMRE, 2015). Addressing technical barriers should be prioritized in the
systems and depends upon the availability of skilled workforce and policy mix for eliminating barriers and enabling the growth of OWE in
technicians. Last in the category are unreliable transportation facilities India. Government should also focus on these barriers, which affect and
and the unavailability of heavy-duty supply chain technology, which hamper the energy generation using offshore wind energy, which could
share the local rank five. Large wind turbines pose supply chain prob have a more significant impact on the environment and societies, and
lems as it requires specialized treatment from production to installation the world as a whole.
phase. Heavy-duty supply chain technology as the state of the art
technology is a costly affair. Incidentally, out of six sub-barriers of the 6. Conclusion and implications
supply chain, none falls into the top 20 global ranks.
Regulatory and Political barriers: Regulatory and Political bar India has a massive renewable energy target of 450 GW of installed
riers stand in seventh place and are having the slightest influence on renewable energy capacity by 2030, but despite an extensive coastline
OWE growth. Entry barriers, which are at the local rank first, if reduced, and existing policies to promote OWE, it is yet to see the deployment of
may be a significant force to reckon with for making more participation OWE. During this investigation, the aim was to assess barriers from the
of small players. Technology emerged as the most significant entry extant literature and then categorize and prioritize them. This study has
barrier. Electricity suppliers’ compliance with the renewable obligation identified 46 barriers from the extant literature and categorized those
and imperfect relevant standards ranks next in this category. The low into seven broad categories through literature review and interviews
supply of Renewable Obligation Certificates creates a problem as OWE with experts to support policymakers and researchers. It also aimed to
in India is yet to take off in a big way. The absence of mandatory stan attempt to organize the fragmented literature. To emphasize it, further
dards as a policy instrument hinders the OWE as it is a major technical authors used a multi-criteria decision-making approach (Fuzzy AHP) to
9
Table 6
Influence of technological barriers on other barriers.
Barrier’s Categories Weights of categories
FB 0.19471 0.23485 0.20876 0.18266 0.15657 0.13047 0.10438 0.07828 0.05219 0.02609
RPB 0.05333 0.06432 0.05717 0.05002 0.04288 0.03573 0.02859 0.02144 0.01429 0.00715
SB 0.18642 0.22485 0.19987 0.17488 0.14990 0.12492 0.09993 0.07495 0.04997 0.02498
TB 0.25382 0.10000 0.20000 0.30000 0.40000 0.50000 0.60000 0.70000 0.80000 0.90000
SCB 0.07605 0.09172 0.08153 0.07134 0.06115 0.05096 0.04077 0.03057 0.02038 0.01019
IB 0.12822 0.15466 0.13747 0.12029 0.10310 0.08592 0.06874 0.05155 0.03437 0.01718
GB 0.10745 0.12960 0.11520 0.10080 0.08640 0.07200 0.05760 0.04320 0.02880 0.01440
Total 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Table 7
Ranking of barriers using sensitivity analysis when the value of technological barrier varies.
Barriers Technological barrier used for sensitivity analysis
0.1 0.2 Normalized (0.25382) 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
FB1 1 1 1 1 6 8 8 9 9 9
FB2 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42
FB3 14 19 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22
FB4 20 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 28 28
FB5 4 4 4 7 11 11 12 12 12 12
FB6 24 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 31
FB7 37 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
FB8 13 18 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21
GB1 17 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25
GB2 16 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24
GB3 11 16 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19
GB4 12 17 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20
GB5 9 12 14 16 16 17 17 17 17 17
IB1 5 5 5 8 12 12 13 13 13 13
IB2 18 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26
IB3 10 14 15 17 17 18 18 18 18 18
IB4 8 11 13 15 15 16 16 16 16 16
IB5 22 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30
RPB1 39 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
RPB2 40 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41
RPB3 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
RPB4 27 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
RPB5 34 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37
RPB6 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43
RPB7 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44
RPB8 38 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39
RPB9 33 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
SB1 6 6 6 11 13 13 14 14 14 14
SB2 2 2 2 2 7 9 9 10 10 10
SB3 3 3 3 6 10 10 10 11 11 11
SB4 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
SB5 7 7 7 12 14 14 15 15 15 15
SCB1 31 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34
SCB2 32 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
SCB3 30 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33
SCB4 19 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 27
SCB5 21 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29
SCB6 15 21 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 23
TB1 36 22 17 14 9 7 7 7 7 7
TB2 29 15 12 10 5 5 5 5 5 5
TB3 23 8 8 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
TB4 28 13 11 9 4 4 4 4 4 4
TB5 42 38 32 31 22 15 11 8 8 8
TB6 35 20 16 13 8 6 6 6 6 6
TB7 25 9 9 4 2 2 2 2 2 2
TB8 26 10 10 5 3 3 3 3 3 3
categorize and prioritize these barriers. To overcome the limitation of a to assess criteria weightage, triangular fuzzy numbers were employed to
clear-cut definition of the barriers and assign subjective weights before deal with uncertainties in the data to arrive at criteria value. Technical
analysis, Fuzzy AHP was used to categorize and prioritize these barriers and financial barriers emerge as the most significant, and Supply chain
from most influencing to the least influencing sequentially. The findings barriers and Regulatory & Political barriers are the least significant
of this research provide insights into seven categories of barriers obstacle hindering the growth of OWE in India.
responsible for hindering OWE growth in India. These are Technical At global rank, the top four barriers are an initial capital requirement
Barriers, Financial barriers, Social barriers, Institutional barriers, (financial), lack of social acceptance & visual, noise impacts (social),
Geographical barriers, Supply chain barriers, and Regulatory & Political and immature offshore engineering market (financial). The least sig
barriers. Data collected from the experts through questionnaire was used nificant barrier in the global ranking is bureaucratic permit procedures
10
(Regulatory & Political barriers). The top-ranked barriers in the indi

vidual relative ranking are; Lack of servicing and maintenance facilities
in technical barriers, Initial Capital in financial barriers, lack of social
acceptance in social barriers, and Lack of skilled HR in institutional
barriers. Natural disasters in geographic barriers, non-alignment be
tween tooling and facilities at the yards, and serial production of large
monopiles & jacket foundations in Supply chain barriers and entry
barriers in Regulatory & Political barriers are at top-ranked individual
barriers. These results help build an effective policy mix by emphasizing
the inclusion of financial incentives to drive down initial capital,
drafting a clear framework for planning and delivering grid infrastruc
ture, directing resources to build a skilled OWE workforce, and adding
social factors to the existing National Offshore Wind Energy Policy.
An empirical investigation of barriers in terms of identifying, cate
gorizing, and prioritizing can be used to recognize the bottlenecks
responsible for thwarting off-take or growth of any sector. These barriers
once prioritized are expedient for companies and government policy
makers interested to see the sector’s development. Sector in their life
cycle goes through multiple logjams and requires the attention of re
searchers to provide the right inputs to policymakers for effective
treatment of the same. Thus, the study is an attempt to contribute to the
practice by stressing the importance of technical and financial barriers
here; attention should be paid to limiting their presence.
These findings suggest that, in general, these seven barriers impede
the growth of OWE in India. This paper is the first comprehensive
investigation of barriers and sub-barriers responsible for inhibiting the
growth of OWE in India. These findings highlight the potential useful
Fig. 3. Results of the sensitivity analysis.
ness of categories of barriers and sub-barriers for creating the right

policy mix for the promotion of OWE in India. The present study extends
our knowledge of identification, categorization, and prioritization of
OWE barriers and answers why, despite OWE policy framed in 2015,
little or no installation of OWE has taken place. It is the first compre
hensive empirical inquiry to reveal robust barriers accountable for the
non-significant off-take of offshore wind energy in India calls for
empirical inquiry of barriers. The most hindering barriers-technical and
financial ask for focused efforts by the Government of India (GOI) to
remove them. The policy set shall take care of the lack of servicing and
maintenance facilities, focused enclaves like offshore wind zones, and
uncertainties on future foundation technology choices. OWE project
viability along with adequate stimuli for the creation of demand and
supply side of the market are the solutions required for making the
offshore wind energy market feasible. Investors must upgrade technol
ogy with proper service and maintenance and they shall benefit from
subsidies and incentives to reduce costs.
Moreover, identification and ranking of OWE barriers in India would
give the direction for other countries to reflect on their flaws and make
required policy changes. In general, the renewable energy sector glob
ally needs to overcome the barriers to ensure a clean and sustainable
planet. We urge that research go beyond identifying barriers to
accepting a social practice that makes the adoption of renewables a new
norm.
7. Limitations and future scope of work
This study is the result of a quantitative analysis of the data collected

in the Indian context. Hence all the barriers identified in this study, such
as technical, financial, regulatory, political, social, supply chain, and
institutional barriers, are all specific to India. Therefore, this research’s
findings cannot be generalized to the countries across the world as it is
only specific to the Indian context.
Future studies may extend the scope and method used in this study.
They may use quantitative and qualitative data to prioritize and rank the
barriers to offshore wind energy, such as ANP, TOPSIS. The research
may also be replicated in other countries with different political, social,
institutional, technical, and financial challenges to OWE.
11
CRediT authorship contribution statement Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 136, 110414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2020.110414.
Chan, F.T.S., Kumar, N., Tiwari, M.K., Lau, H.C.W., Choy, K.L., 2008. Global supplier
Tarun Dhingra: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, selection: a fuzzy-AHP approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 46, 3825–3857. https://doi.org/
Writing – review & editing. Anita Sengar: Conceptualization, Meth 10.1080/00207540600787200.
odology, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Chang, D.Y., 1996. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 95, 649–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2.
Writing – review & editing. Shambhu Sajith: Conceptualization, Data Charles Rajesh Kumar, J., Vinod Kumar, D., Baskar, D., Mary Arunsi, B., Jenova, R.,
curation, Reviewing and Editing. Majid, M.A., 2021. Offshore wind energy status, challenges, opportunities,
environmental impacts, occupational health, and safety management in India.
Energy Environ. 32, 565–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X20946483.
Cheng, E.W.L., Li, H., 2002. Construction partnering process and associated critical
Declaration of competing interest success factors: quantitative investigation. J. Manag. Eng. 18 (4) https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2002)18:4(194). In this issue.
Chindarkar, N., Goyal, N., 2019. One price doesn’t fit all: an examination of
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial heterogeneity in price elasticity of residential electricity in India. Energy Econ. 81,
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence 765–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.05.021.
the work reported in this paper. Collu, M., Brennan, F.P., Patel, M.H., 2014. Conceptual design of a floating support
structure for an offshore vertical axis wind turbine: the lessons learnt. Ships Offshore
Struct. 9, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2012.698896.
References Colmenar-Santos, A., Perera-Perez, J., Borge-Diez, D., Depalacio-Rodríguez, C., 2016.
Offshore wind energy: a review of the current status, challenges and future
development in Spain. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Abdel-Basset, M., Gamal, A., Chakrabortty, R.K., Ryan, M., 2021. A new hybrid multi-
rser.2016.05.087.
criteria decision-making approach for location selection of sustainable offshore wind
Das, A., Jani, H.K., Kachhwaha, S.S., Nagababu, G., 2020. Assessment of factors affecting
energy stations: a case study. J. Clean. Prod. 280 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
onshore wind power deployment in India. Environ. Clim. Technol. 24, 185–208.
jclepro.2020.124462.
https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2020-0012.
Abramic, A., García Mendoza, A., Haroun, R., 2021. Introducing offshore wind energy in
Dawn, S., Tiwari, P.K., Goswami, A.K., Singh, A.K., Panda, R., 2019. Wind power:
the sea space: Canary Islands case study developed under Maritime Spatial Planning
existing status, achievements and government’s initiative towards renewable power
principles. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 145, 111119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
dominating India. Energy Strateg. Rev. 23, 178–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2021.111119.
esr.2019.01.002.
Adedipe, O., Brennan, F., Kolios, A., 2016. Review of corrosion fatigue in offshore
Deveci, M., Cali, U., Kucuksari, S., Erdogan, N., 2020. Interval type-2 fuzzy sets based
structures: present status and challenges in the offshore wind sector. Renew. Sustain.
multi-criteria decision-making model for offshore wind farm development in Ireland.
Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.02.017.
Energy 198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117317.
Akbari, N., Irawan, C.A., Jones, D.F., Menachof, D., 2017. A multi-criteria port suitability
Dinwoodie, I., Endrerud, O.E., Hofmann, M., Martin, R., Sperstad, I., 2015. Reference
assessment for developments in the offshore wind industry. Renew. Energy 102,
cases for verification of operation and maintenance simulation models for offshore
118–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.10.035.
wind farms. Wind Eng. 39, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1260/0309-524X.39.1.1.
Al-Sumaiti, A.S., Kavousi-Fard, A., Salama, M., Pourbehzadi, M., Reddy, S., Rasheed, M.
Diógenes, J.R.F., Claro, J., Rodrigues, J.C., Loureiro, M.V., 2020. Barriers to onshore
B., 2020. Economic assessment of distributed generation technologies: a feasibility
wind energy implementation: a systematic review. Energy Res. Social Sci. 60,
study and comparison with the literature. Energies 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/
101337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101337.
en13112764.
Dutta, V., Dasgupta, P., Hultman, N., Gadag, G., 2016. Evaluating expert opinion on
Aldersey-Williams, J., Rubert, T., 2019. Levelised cost of energy – a theoretical
India’s climate policy: opportunities and barriers to low-carbon inclusive growth.
justification and critical assessment. Energy Pol. 124, 169–179. https://doi.org/
Clim. Dev. 8, 336–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2015.1067181.
10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.004.
Fan, Y., Mu, A., Ma, T., 2016. Study on the application of energy storage system in
Aswani, R., Sajith, S., Bhat, M.Y., 2021a. Is geopolitics a threat for offshore wind energy?
offshore wind turbine with hydraulic transmission. Energy Convers. Manag. 110,
A case of Indian Ocean Region. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 32683–32694. https://
338–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.12.033.
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12779-z.
Fetanat, A., Khorasaninejad, E., 2015. A novel hybrid MCDM approach for offshore wind
Aswani, R.S., Sajith, S., Bhat, M.Y., 2021. Realigning India’s Vietnam Policy through
farm site selection: a case study of Iran. Ocean Coast Manag. 109, 17–28. https://doi.
Cooperative Sustainable Development: a Geostrategic Counterbalancing to China in
org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.02.005.
Indo-Pacific. East Asia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-021-09371-0.
Firestone, J., Kempton, W., Lilley, M.B., Samoteskul, K., 2012. Public acceptance of
Barradale, M.J., 2010. Impact of public policy uncertainty on renewable energy
offshore wind power across regions and through time. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 55,
investment: wind power and the production tax credit. Energy Pol. 38, 7698–7709.
1369–1386. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.682782.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.08.021.
Fullér, R., 1991. On product-sum of triangular fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Set Syst. 41, 83–87.
Beinke, T., Quandt, M., Ait-Alla, A., Freitag, M., 2020. The impact of information sharing
https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(91)90158-M.
on installation processes of offshore wind farms – process modelling and simulation-
García-Álvarez, M.T., Cabeza-García, L., Soares, I., 2017. Analysis of the promotion of
based analysis. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist. (IJSTL) 12, 92–116. https://doi.org/
onshore wind energy in the EU: feed-in tariff or renewable portfolio standard?
10.1504/IJSTL.2020.105872.
Renew. Energy 111, 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.067.
Bento, N., Fontes, M., 2019. Emergence of floating offshore wind energy: technology and
Gatzert, N., Kosub, T., 2016. Risks and risk management of renewable energy projects:
industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 99, 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
the case of onshore and offshore wind parks. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://
rser.2018.09.035.
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.103.
Blanco, M.I., 2009. The economics of wind energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://
Gonyo, S.B., Fleming, C.S., Freitag, A., Goedeke, T.L., 2021. Resident perceptions of local
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.09.004.
offshore wind energy development: modeling efforts to improve participatory
Bose, A.S., Sarkar, S., 2019. India’s e-reverse auctions (2017–2018) for allocating
processes. Energy Pol. 149 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112068.
renewable energy capacity: an evaluation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 112,
Gonzalez-Rodriguez, A.G., 2017. Review of offshore wind farm cost components. Energy
762–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.025.
Sustain. Dev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2016.12.001.
Bossoufi, B., Karim, M., Taoussi, M., Alami Aroussi, H., Bouderbala, M., Motahhir, S.,
Govindan, K., Shankar, M., 2016. Evaluating the essential barrier to off-shore wind
Camara, M.B., 2020. DSPACE-based implementation for observer backstepping
energy – an Indian perspective. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag. 10, 266–282. https://doi.
power control of DFIG wind turbine. IET Electr. Power Appl 14, 2395–2403. https://
org/10.1108/IJESM-04-2015-0010.
doi.org/10.1049/iet-epa.2020.0364.
Gudmestad, O.T., 2020. Wind turbines designed for easy installation. WIT Trans. Ecol.
Bossoufi, B., Karim, M., Taoussi, M., Aroussi, H.A., Bouderbala, M., Deblecker, O.,
Environ. 246, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.2495/EPM200041.
Motahhir, S., Nayyar, A., Alzain, M.A., 2021. Rooted tree optimization for the
Güner, F., Başer, V., Zenk, H., 2021. Evaluation of offshore wind power plant
backstepping power control of a doubly fed induction generator wind turbine:
sustainability: a case study of Sinop/Gerze, Turkey. Int. J. Glob. Warming 23,
dSPACE implementation. IEEE Access 9, 26512–26522. https://doi.org/10.1109/
370–384. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGW.2021.114342.
ACCESS.2021.3057123.
GWEC, 2021. An Ocean of Potential [WWW Document]. URL, 12.17.21. https://gwec.ne
Browning, M.S., Lenox, C.S., 2020. Contribution of offshore wind to the power grid: U.S.
t/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/April-2021-India-Offshore-Wind-Statement-2.pdf.
air quality implications. Appl. Energy 276, 115474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Haggett, C., 2011. Understanding public responses to offshore wind power. Energy Pol.
apenergy.2020.115474.
39, 503–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.10.014.
Buchana, P., McSharry, P.E., 2019. Windstorm risk assessment for offshore wind farms in
Halvorsen-Weare, E.E., Gundegjerde, C., Halvorsen, I.B., Hvattum, L.M., Nonås, L.M.,
the North Sea. Wind Energy 22, 1219–1229. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.2351.
2013. Vessel fleet analysis for maintenance operations at offshore wind farms. In:
Buckley, J.J., 1985. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Set Syst. 17, 233–247. https://doi.
Energy Procedia, pp. 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.07.170.
org/10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9.
Hau, E., 2013. Wind Turbines: Fundamentals, Technologies, Application, Economics,
Burke, P.J., Widnyana, J., Anjum, Z., Aisbett, E., Resosudarmo, B., Baldwin, K.G.H.,
Wind Turbines: Fundamentals, Technologies, Application, Economics. https://doi.
2019. Overcoming barriers to solar and wind energy adoption in two Asian giants:
org/10.1007/978-3-642-27151-9.
India and Indonesia. Energy Pol. 132, 1216–1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Hooper, T., Ashley, M., Austen, M., 2015. Perceptions of Fishers and developers on the
enpol.2019.05.055.
co-location of offshore wind farms and decapod fisheries in the UK. Mar. Pol. 61,
Cevasco, D., Koukoura, S., Kolios, A.J., 2021. Reliability, availability, maintainability
16–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.06.031.
data review for the identification of trends in offshore wind energy applications.
12
Hou, P., Enevoldsen, P., Hu, W., Chen, C., Chen, Z., 2017. Offshore wind farm Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G., 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications, Newbury Park,
repowering optimization. Appl. Energy 208, 834–844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. CA. In this issue.
apenergy.2017.09.064. Lo, H.W., Hsu, C.C., Chen, B.C., Liou, J.J.H., 2021. Building a grey-based multi-criteria
Hou, P., Hu, W., Chen, C., Soltani, M., Chen, Z., 2016. Optimization of offshore wind decision-making model for offshore wind farm site selection. Sustain. Energy
farm layout in restricted zones. Energy 113, 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Technol. Assessments 43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100935.
energy.2016.07.062. Lu, T., Sherman, P., Chen, X., Chen, S., Lu, X., McElroy, M., 2020. India’s potential for
Hrouga, M., Bostel, N., 2021. Supply chain planning of off-shores winds farms integrating solar and on- and offshore wind power into its energy system. Nat.
operations: a review. Lect. Notes Mech. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030- Commun. 11 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18318-7.
62199-5_33. Ma, Y., Xu, L., Cai, J., Cao, J., Zhao, F., Zhang, J., 2021. A novel hybrid multi-criteria
Igwe, P.A., Howell, K.E., 2015. The UK offshore wind job creation capacity, O&M costs decision-making approach for offshore wind turbine selection. Wind Eng. 45,
and content analysis. Papers. In: RINA, Royal Institution of Naval Architects - Design 1273–1295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309524X20973600.
and Operation of Wind Farm Support Vessels 2015, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/ Mani, S., Dhingra, T., 2013a. Critique of offshore wind energy policies of the UK and
10.3940/rina.wfv.2015.16. Germany-What are the lessons for India. Energy Pol. 63, 900–909. https://doi.org/
Irawan, C.A., Akbari, N., Jones, D.F., Menachof, D., 2018. A combined supply chain 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.058.
optimisation model for the installation phase of offshore wind projects. Int. J. Prod. Mani, S., Dhingra, T., 2013b. Offshore wind energy policy for India-Key factors to be
Res. 56, 1189–1207. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1403661. considered. Energy Pol. 56, 672–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.031.
James, R., Ros, M.C., 2015. Floating offshore wind: market and technology review Mani, S., Dhingra, T., 2013c. Policies to accelerate the growth of offshore wind energy
important notice and disclaimer. Carbon Trust 1–168. sector in India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Jiang, D., Wu, B., Yang, X., Van Gelder, P.H.A.J.M., 2019. A fuzzy evidential reasoning rser.2013.03.065.
based approach for submarine power cable routing selection for offshore wind farms. Manwell, J.F., McGowan, J.G., Rogers, A.L., 2010. Wind Energy Explained: Theory,
Ocean Eng. 193 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106616. Design and Application, Wind Energy Explained: Theory, Design and Application.
Kaldellis, J.K., Apostolou, D., 2017. Life cycle energy and carbon footprint of offshore https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119994367.
wind energy. Comparison with onshore counterpart. Renew. Energy. https://doi. Marshall, M.N., 1996. Sampling for qualitative research. Fam. Pract. 13 (6) https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.02.039. org/10.1093/fampra/13.6.522. In this issue.
Kandpal, D., Dhingra, T., 2021. Migrating to reverse Auction mechanisms in wind energy Mehmanparast, A., Vidament, A., 2021. An accelerated corrosion-fatigue testing
sector: status and challenges. Energy Pol. 156, 112352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. methodology for offshore wind applications. Eng. Struct. 240 https://doi.org/
enpol.2021.112352. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112414.
Kandrot, S., Cummins, V., Jordan, D., Murphy, J., 2020. Economic and employment Mello, G., Ferreira Dias, M., Robaina, M., 2020. Wind farms life cycle assessment review:
impacts of offshore wind for Ireland: a value chain analysis. Int. J. Green Energy CO2 emissions and climate change. Energy Rep. 6, 214–219. https://doi.org/
687–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2020.1791874. 10.1016/j.egyr.2020.11.104.
Keivanpour, S., Ramudhin, A., Ait Kadi, D., 2019. Towards the blockchain-enabled Myhr, A., Bjerkseter, C., Ågotnes, A., Nygaard, T.A., 2014. Levelised cost of energy for
offshore wind energy supply chain. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. https://doi.org/ offshore floating wind turbines in a lifecycle perspective. Renew. Energy 66,
10.1007/978-3-030-02686-8_67. 714–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.01.017.
Kern, F., Smith, A., Shaw, C., Raven, R., Verhees, B., 2014. From laggard to leader: Mytilinou, V., Lozano-Minguez, E., Kolios, A., 2018. A framework for the selection of
explaining offshore wind developments in the UK. Energy Pol. 69, 635–646. https:// optimum offshore wind farm locations for deployment. Energies 11. https://doi.org/
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.02.031. 10.3390/en11071855.
Kim, Y.H., Lim, H.C., 2017. Effect of island topography and surface roughness on the Narayanamoorthy, S., Ramya, L., Kang, D., Baleanu, D., Kureethara, J.V.,
estimation of annual energy production of offshore wind farms. Renew. Energy 103, Annapoorani, V., 2021. A new extension of hesitant fuzzy set: an application to an
106–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.11.020. offshore wind turbine technology selection process. IET Renew. Power Gener. 15,
Klir, G.J., Yuan, B., 1995. Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications. Prentice 2340–2355. https://doi.org/10.1049/rpg2.12168.
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. In this issue. NMRE, 2015. नवीन और नवीकरणीय ऊजाᭅ मंᮢालय 2015, pp. 1–16.
Koldby, E., Hyttinen, M., 2009. Challenges on the Road to an Offshore HVDC Grid. Nord. O’Keeffe, A., Haggett, C., 2012. An investigation into the potential barriers facing the
Wind Power Conf. CD-ROM. development of offshore wind energy in Scotland: case study - firth of Forth offshore
Kolios, A., Collu, M., Chahardehi, A., Brennan, F.P., Patel, M.H., 2010. A multi-criteria wind farm. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
decision making method to compare support structures for offshore wind turbines. rser.2012.03.018.
In: European Wind Energy Conference and Exhibition 2010. EWEC 2010, O’Sullivan, R., 2021. Offshore Wind in Europe - Key Trends and Statistics 2020.
pp. 4778–4787. WindEurope.
Kota, S., Bayne, S.B., Nimmagadda, S., 2015. Offshore wind energy: a comparative Obane, H., Nagai, Y., Asano, K., 2021. Assessing the potential areas for developing
analysis of UK, USA and India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/ offshore wind energy in Japanese territorial waters considering national zoning and
10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.080. possible social conflicts. Mar. Pol. 129, 104514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Kotler, Philip, Armstrong, Gary, 1987. Marketing: An introduction. Prentice - Hall. marpol.2021.104514.
Kumar, R., Stallard, T., Stansby, P.K., 2021. Large-scale offshore wind energy installation Oh, K.Y., Nam, W., Ryu, M.S., Kim, J.Y., Epureanu, B.I., 2018. A review of foundations of
in northwest India: assessment of wind resource using Weather Research and offshore wind energy convertors: current status and future perspectives. Renew.
Forecasting and levelized cost of energy. Wind Energy 24, 174–192. https://doi.org/ Sustain. Energy Rev. 88, 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.02.005.
10.1002/we.2566. Ou, L., Xu, W., Yue, Q., Ma, C.L., Teng, X., Dong, Y.E., 2018. Offshore wind zoning in
Künneke, R., Mehos, D.C., Hillerbrand, R., Hemmes, K., 2015. Understanding values China: method and experience. Ocean Coast Manag. 151, 99–108. https://doi.org/
embedded in offshore wind energy systems: toward a purposeful institutional and 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.10.016.
technological design. Environ. Sci. Pol. 53, 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Pacheco, A., Gorbeña, E., Sequeira, C., Jerez, S., 2017. An evaluation of offshore wind
envsci.2015.06.013. power production by floatable systems: a case study from SW Portugal. Energy 131,
Lakhanpal, S., 2019. Contesting renewable energy in the global south: a case-study of 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.149.
local opposition to a wind power project in the Western Ghats of India. Environ. Dev. Page, A.M., Skau, K.S., Jostad, H.P., Eiksund, G.R., 2017. A new foundation model for
30, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.02.002. integrated analyses of monopile-based offshore wind turbines. In: Energy Procedia,
Lam, Kokin, Zhao, Xiande, 1998. An application of quality function deployment to pp. 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.10.337.
improve the quality of teaching. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 15 (4) https://doi.org/ Paik, J.K., 2019. Mooring system engineering for offshore structures. Ships Offshore
10.1108/02656719810196351. In this issue. Struct. 14 https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2019.1636537, 788–788.
Lee, H.S., Lee, S.Y., Har, W.M., Low, C.W., 2020. Energy use and corruption mitigation: Perveen, R., Kishor, N., Mohanty, S.R., 2014. Off-shore wind farm development: present
implications for the environmental pollution. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and status and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Environmental Science. Faculty of Accountancy and Management, Universiti Tunku rser.2013.08.108.
Abdul Rahman, Selangor, Kajang, Malaysia, p. 43000. https://doi.org/10.1088/ Pfeiffer, O., Nock, D., Baker, E., 2021. Wind energy’s bycatch: offshore wind deployment
1755-1315/498/1/012063. impacts on hydropower operation and migratory fish. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
Lee, J., Zhao, F., 2021. Global wind report 2021. Glob. Wind Energy Counc. 75. 143 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110885.
Leira, B.J., 2017. Multi-purpose offshore-platforms: past, present and future research and Prakash, C., Barua, M.K., 2016. A multi-criteria decision-making approach for
developments. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore prioritizing reverse logistics adoption barriers under fuzzy environment: case of
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering - OMAE. https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2017- Indian electronics industry. Global Bus. Rev. 17, 1107–1124. https://doi.org/
62691. 10.1177/0972150916656667.
Lerch, M., De-Prada-Gil, M., Molins, C., Benveniste, G., 2018. Sensitivity analysis on the Prakash, C., Barua, M.K., 2015. Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method for prioritizing the
levelized cost of energy for floating offshore wind farms. Sustain. Energy Technol. solutions of reverse logistics adoption to overcome its barriers under fuzzy
Assessments 30, 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2018.09.005. environment. J. Manuf. Syst. 37, 599–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Leung, D.Y.C., Yang, Y., 2012. Wind energy development and its environmental impact: jmsy.2015.03.001.
a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.024. Qu, Y., Hooper, T., Swales, J.K., Papathanasopoulou, E., Austen, M.C., Yan, X., 2021.
Li, Y., Tian, X., Zhang, Z., Yu, X., Chi, Y., Huang, R., Huang, D., Shi, W., Zhang, M., 2020. Energy-food nexus in the marine environment: a macroeconomic analysis on
Study on reliability evaluation technology requirements for large-scale offshore wind offshore wind energy and seafood production in Scotland. Energy Pol. 149, 112027.
power. In: Proceedings - 2020 Chinese Automation Congress, CAC 2020. China State https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112027.
Key Laboratory of Operation and Control of Renewable Energy Storage Systems. Ram, M., Child, M., Aghahosseini, A., Bogdanov, D., Lohrmann, A., Breyer, C., 2018.
China Electric Power Research Institute, Beijing, China, pp. 5392–5396. https://doi. A comparative analysis of electricity generation costs from renewable, fossil fuel and
org/10.1109/CAC51589.2020.9327286.
13
nuclear sources in G20 countries for the period 2015-2030. J. Clean. Prod. 199, Tseng, Y.C., Lee, Y.M., Liao, S.J., 2017. An integrated assessment framework of offshore
687–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.159. wind power projects applying equator principles and social life cycle assessment.
Raoux, A., Lassalle, G., Pezy, J.P., Tecchio, S., Safi, G., Ernande, B., Mazé, C., Loc’h, F. Le, Sustain. Times 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101822.
Lequesne, J., Girardin, V., Dauvin, J.C., Niquil, N., 2019. Measuring sensitivity of Tsouri, M., Hanson, J., Normann, H.E., 2021. Does participation in knowledge networks
two OSPAR indicators for a coastal food web model under offshore wind farm facilitate market access in global innovation systems? The case of offshore wind. Res.
construction. Ecol. Indicat. 96, 728–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Pol. 50, 104227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104227.
ecolind.2018.07.014. Ubay, G.G., 2021. Strategy proposals for onshore and offshore wind energy investments
Réthoré, P.-E., Johansen, N., Frandsen, S.T., RBKS, 2009. Systematic Wind Farm in developing countries. Contrib. Manag. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
Measurement Data Reinforcement Tool for Wake Model Calibration. Offshore Wind, 72288-3_20.
pp. 1–10. Umoh, K., Lemon, M., 2020. Drivers for and barriers to the take up of floating offshore
Rueda-Bayona, J.G., Guzmán, A., Eras, J.J.C., Silva-Casarín, R., Bastidas-Arteaga, E., wind technology: a comparison of Scotland and South Africa. Energies 13. https://
Horrillo-Caraballo, J., 2019. Renewables energies in Colombia and the opportunity doi.org/10.3390/en13215618.
for the offshore wind technology. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Valpy, B., Hundleby, G., Freeman, K., Roberts, A., Logan, A., 2017. Future Renewable
jclepro.2019.02.174. Energy Costs: Offshore Wind. InnoEnergy.
Saaty, T.L., 1990. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Wieczorek, A.J., Hekkert, M.P., Coenen, L., Harmsen, R., 2015. Broadening the national
Res. 48, 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I. focus in technological innovation system analysis: the case of offshore wind.
Saaty, Thomas L., Vargas, Luis G., 1991. Prediction, Projection and Forecasting. Springer, Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions 14, 128–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Netherlands. In this issue. eist.2014.09.001.
Sarker, B.R., Faiz, T.I., 2017. Minimizing transportation and installation costs for Willis, D.J., Niezrecki, C., Kuchma, D., Hines, E., Arwade, S.R., Barthelmie, R.J.,
turbines in offshore wind farms. Renew. Energy 101, 667–679. https://doi.org/ DiPaola, M., Drane, P.J., Hansen, C.J., Inalpolat, M., Mack, J.H., Myers, A.T.,
10.1016/j.renene.2016.09.014. Rotea, M., 2018. Wind energy research: state-of-the-art and future research
Satpute, A.V., Kumar, E.V., 2021. Current scenario of wind power in India, government directions. Renew. Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.02.049.
policies, initiatives, status and challenges. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag. 15, 209–226. Willsteed, E.A., Jude, S., Gill, A.B., Birchenough, S.N.R., 2018. Obligations and
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-03-2020-0007. aspirations: a critical evaluation of offshore wind farm cumulative impact
Sedlar, D.K., Vulin, D., Krajačić, G., Jukić, L., 2019. Offshore gas production assessments. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
infrastructure reutilisation for blue energy production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. rser.2017.08.079.
108, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.03.052. Woodman, B., Mitchell, C., 2011. Learning from experience? The development of the
Sengar, A., Sharma, V., Agrawal, R., Bharti, K., 2014. Prioritisation of barriers to rural renewables obligation in England and Wales 2002-2010. Energy Pol. 39, 3914–3921.
markets: integrating fuzzy logic and AHP. Int. J. Bus. Emerg. Mark. 6, 371. https:// https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.074.
doi.org/10.1504/ijbem.2014.065584. Wu, B., Yip, T.L., Xie, L., Wang, Y., 2018. A fuzzy-MADM based approach for site
Sengar, A., Sharma, V., Agrawal, R., Dwivedi, A., Dwivedi, P., Joshi, K., Dixit, G., selection of offshore wind farm in busy waterways in China. Ocean Eng. 168,
Sharma, P.K., Barthwal, M., 2020. Prioritization of barriers to energy generation 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.08.065.
using pine needles to mitigate climate change: evidence from India. J. Clean. Prod. Wu, X., Hu, Y., Li, Y., Yang, J., Duan, L., Wang, T., Adcock, T., Jiang, Z., Gao, Z., Lin, Z.,
275, 123840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123840. Borthwick, A., Liao, S., 2019. Foundations of offshore wind turbines: a review.
Shafiee, M., Kolios, A., 2015. A multi-criteria decision model to mitigate the operational Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 104, 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
risks of offshore wind infrastructures. In: Safety and Reliability: Methodology and rser.2019.01.012.
Applications - Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference. Wu, Y., Tao, Y., Zhang, B., Wang, S., Xu, C., Zhou, J., 2020. A decision framework of
ESREL, pp. 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17399-77, 2014. offshore wind power station site selection using a PROMETHEE method under
Shen, B., Narayanaswamy, B., Sundaram, R., 2015. SmartShift: expanded load shifting intuitionistic fuzzy environment: a case in China. Ocean Coast Manag. 184 https://
incentive mechanism for risk-averse consumers. In: Proceedings of the National doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105016.
Conference on Artificial Intelligence. CCIS, Northeastern University, Boston, MA Yang, W., Tavner, P.J., Crabtree, C.J., Feng, Y., Qiu, Y., 2014. Wind turbine condition
02115, United States, pp. 716–722. monitoring: technical and commercial challenges. Wind Energy 17, 673–693.
Sinha, A., Gupta, M., Shahbaz, M., Sengupta, T., 2019. Environemn. J. Clean. Prod. 232, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1508.
1379–1393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.066. Yang, Y., Yuan, G., Zhuang, Q., Tian, G., 2019. Multi-objective low-carbon disassembly
Smudde, T., 2018. Offshore wind industry joins forces to reduce costs of cable failures - line balancing for agricultural machinery using MDFOA and fuzzy AHP. J. Clean.
DNV GL. Dnv-Gl 1–4. Prod. 233, 1465–1474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.035.
Solangi, Y.A., Tan, Q., Mirjat, N.H., Ali, S., 2019. Evaluating the strategies for sustainable Yao, Y., Xu, J.H., Sun, D.Q., 2021. Untangling global levelised cost of electricity based on
energy planning in Pakistan: an integrated SWOT-AHP and Fuzzy-TOPSIS approach. multi-factor learning curve for renewable energy: wind, solar, geothermal,
J. Clean. Prod. 236, 117655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117655. hydropower and bioenergy. J. Clean. Prod. 285 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Stelzenmüller, V., Gimpel, A., Haslob, H., Letschert, J., Berkenhagen, J., Brüning, S., jclepro.2020.124827.
2021. Sustainable co-location solutions for offshore wind farms and fisheries need to Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8 (3). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958
account for socio-ecological trade-offs. Sci. Total Environ. 776 https://doi.org/ (65)90241-X. In this issue.
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145918. Zamzoum, O., Derouich, A., Motahhir, S., El Mourabit, Y., El Ghzizal, A., 2020.
Sunila, K., Bergaentzlé, C., Martin, B., Ekroos, A., 2019. A supra-national TSO to enhance Performance analysis of a robust adaptive fuzzy logic controller for wind turbine
offshore wind power development in the Baltic Sea? A legal and regulatory analysis. power limitation. J. Clean. Prod. 265, 121659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Energy Pol. 128, 775–782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.01.047. jclepro.2020.121659.
Tagotra, N., 2018. Energy security: how decision-making processes in India’s energy Zhang, Y., Zhang, C., Chang, Y.C., Liu, W.H., Zhang, Yong, 2017. Offshore wind farm in
bureaucracy shape India’s energy policy. Strat. Anal. 42, 461–475. https://doi.org/ marine spatial planning and the stakeholders engagement: opportunities and
10.1080/09700161.2018.1523078. challenges for Taiwan. Ocean Coast Manag. 149, 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Thapar, S., Sharma, S., Verma, A., 2018. Key determinants of wind energy growth in ocecoaman.2017.09.014.
India: analysis of policy and non-policy factors. Energy Pol. 122, 622–638. https:// Zhao, H., Wu, Q., Hu, S., Xu, H., Rasmussen, C.N., 2015. Review of energy storage system
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.004. for wind power integration support. Appl. Energy 137, 545–553. https://doi.org/
Thompson, P.M., Hastie, G.D., Nedwell, J., Barham, R., Brookes, K.L., Cordes, L.S., 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.04.103.
Bailey, H., McLean, N., 2013. Framework for assessing impacts of pile-driving noise Zhou, S., Yang, P., 2020. Risk management in distributed wind energy implementing
from offshore wind farm construction on a harbour seal population. Environ. Impact Analytic Hierarchy Process. Renew. Energy 150, 616–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Assess. Rev. 43, 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.06.005. j.renene.2019.12.125.
Thomsen, K.E., 2014. Vessels and transport to offshore installations. In: Offshore Wind, Zhu, K.J., Jing, Y., Chang, D.Y., 1999. Discussion on extent analysis method and
pp. 203–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-410422-8.00012-1. applications of fuzzy AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 116, 450–456. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00331-2.
14
View publication stats

JCLP Owe 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JCLP Owe 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JCLP Owe 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process-based analysis for prioritization of barriers

Article in Journal of Cleaner Production · February 2022

Dr. Tarun Dhingra Anita Sengar

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Regulation and public utility behaviour View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process-based analysis for prioritization of

barriers, their classification, and relative prioritization (Burke et al., Table 1

Table 1 (continued ) Table 2

Fig 1. Steps in research methodology.

• Step 5 : Reliability and validity check ⎧w −

on a one-to-one basis. It enables the decision-maker to prioritize the FNi = j

AHP’s foundation stone is the creation of a hierarchical framework. ( )

The creation of an AHP hierarchy usually begins with a higher-level aim

d ​ (FNi ) ​ = ​ minV ​ (FN ​ ≥ ​ FNk ) ​ = WB,i k = 1, ​ 2, ​ ……, ​ n ​ and ​ k ​ ∕

as mentioned in Fig. 2 (Chan et al., 2008). WB a WB1 , WB2 , ….., WBn T

• Step 4: After normalization, W′ shows priority weights.

3.2. Calculation of weights of all barriers classified under various barrier

The experts made a pairwise comparison of forty-six barriers classi­

(Regulatory & Political barriers). The top-ranked barriers in the indi­

ness of categories of barriers and sub-barriers for creating the right

7. Limitations and future scope of work

This study is the result of a quantitative analysis of the data collected

View publication stats

You might also like

d (FNi ) = minV (FN ≥ FNk ) = WB,i k = 1, 2, ……, n and k ∕

The experts made a pairwise comparison of forty-six barriers classi

(Regulatory & Political barriers). The top-ranked barriers in the indi