Next Article in Journal
Cavitation–Silt Erosion Behavior and Failure Mechanism of an HVOF-Sprayed WC-Cr3C2-Ni Coating for Offshore Hydraulic Machinery
Next Article in Special Issue
Conflicts between Fisheries and Offshore Wind Power in Taiwan: Legal and Administrative Prospects
Previous Article in Journal
Numerical Analysis for Performance and the Combustion Reactants of the Crankcase Explosion Relief Valve
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JMSE
Volume 10
Issue 10
10.3390/jmse10101339
jmse-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Global Trends and Characteristics of Offshore Wind Farm Research over the Past Three Decades: A Bibliometric Analysis

by
Chia-Hsiang Chen
1 and
Nan-Jay Su
2,3,4,*
1
Marine Fisheries Division, Fisheries Research Institute, Council of Agriculture, Keelung 202008, Taiwan
2
Department of Environmental Biology and Fisheries Science, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung 202301, Taiwan
3
Center of Excellence for the Oceans, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung 202301, Taiwan
4
Intelligent Maritime Research Center, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung 202301, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10(10), 1339; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10101339
Submission received: 16 July 2022 / Revised: 7 September 2022 / Accepted: 15 September 2022 / Published: 21 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Impacts of Offshore Wind Farms on Marine Ecosystems, Fisheries and Societies)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Offshore wind power is a valuable renewable energy source. However, the development of offshore wind farms is facing many challenges, including understanding their impacts on ecosystems and society, as well as knowledge gaps in research. In this study, a bibliometric analysis was performed with the aim of providing a comprehensive understanding of current global progress in offshore wind farm research. Three stages of development were considered for the analysis and comparison of research characteristics and outcomes. Based on the total number of scientific publications and the international collaboration ratio (ICR), Europe has been leading research in and the development of offshore wind power since the early 1990s. However, a fast-growing period of offshore wind farm development occurred after 2000, during which Europe and Asia in particular showed increases in ICR. The installation of offshore wind turbines may have non-negligible adverse impacts on marine ecosystems, especially in ecologically vulnerable regions or developing countries. Research and relevant studies should be integrated to investigate and reduce the ecological and environmental damage that results from offshore wind farm development. This paper presents a systematic evaluation of the global developmental trends in offshore wind farm research, which could help to characterize and guide future trends within this field.

1. Introduction

Many countries around the world have begun to develop clean energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on fossil fuels [1,2,3]. After the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in March 2011, adjustments to energy policies that encourage the use of green energy have become a global consensus. Offshore wind power is a valuable renewable energy source [4] and efforts to reduce carbon emissions by increasing renewable energy production have led to the rapid growth of offshore wind power generation. Offshore wind farms are expected to improve the efficiency of wind power generation more than onshore wind turbines and thus, help to mitigate climate change and pollution. Thus, offshore wind power generation has become an important international trend within energy development due to its many advantages and benefits [5,6,7].
Offshore wind power was first developed in Europe by scientists in Denmark and the UK. Currently, several countries around the world operate offshore wind farms. Most of these are located in Europe, followed by Asia and the Americas. In Europe, offshore wind farms have been installed in the UK (n = 30), Germany (n = 19), Denmark (n = 13), the Netherlands (n = 6), Belgium (n = 6), and Sweden (n = 4). The offshore wind farms in Asia are mainly in China (n = 21), Japan (n = 4), South Korea (n = 2), Taiwan (n =2), and Vietnam (n =1). The USA (n = 1) is the only country in the Americas that has any offshore wind farms [8].
Numerous studies have shown that offshore wind turbines are important facilities for creating artificial reefs and increasing fish assemblages, which in turn have positive impacts on habitats, marine biomass, and ecological functions [9,10,11,12]. However, disturbances to existing ecosystems have also been documented, such as adverse effects on birds and mammals [12,13]. Other related environmental issues include noise, pile driving, the risk of collisions, food web impacts, and changes to vessel traffic. There may also be opportunities to combine offshore wind farms with aquaculture facilities in the future [6,14]. Offshore wind power offers several important opportunities but still faces challenges. For example, it limits fishing activities in certain marine areas and it requires more expensive technology and instrumentation for assessing and predicting wind [15,16].
Advanced methods, such as Lidar, are needed to obtain and analyze long-term data regarding wind, waves, climate, bathymetry, and ecology. Integrating these various types of data on ocean conditions for effective forecasting is a significant challenge [17,18]. The noise from the installation of offshore wind farms may temporarily affect fish and aquatic animals [19]. The sounds that are released during piling can cause hearing impairment, obscure communication, and disorient animals and fish [20]. Marine animals may also become endangered by vessel movements that are associated with measurement and installation [21]. On the other hand, offshore wind turbines can be used as artificial reefs and to increase the aggregation of fish schools [22,23]. At all stages of an offshore wind farm’s lifespan (i.e., design, installation, operation, maintenance, and decommission), policymaking and planning are critical for long-term development and reductions in investment risks and threats [24,25,26]. Policymakers and regulators need to consider the above challenges to encourage the development of offshore wind power [27].
While there is a consensus on the need to transition to green energy, many studies have highlighted the importance of also benefiting local communities [28,29]. The debate over renewable energy has gained international attention over the past few decades and many large-scale renewable energy infrastructure projects regularly face local opposition [30]. The implementation of offshore wind farms still faces many challenges. Knowledge of the impacts of offshore wind farms on marine ecosystems and the use of marine areas is limited and these impacts have not been extensively studied [31,32]. Questions regarding the environmental consequences of offshore wind farm development remain unanswered. There are also still huge knowledge gaps regarding the ecological effects of offshore wind farms [25,33].
In this study, our objective was to perform a bibliometric analysis and obtain a comprehensive understanding of the current global progress in offshore wind power development. Based on a review of published papers and reports, we divided the development of offshore wind power into three stages, according to distinct trends in the publication rates: 1995–2005, 2006–2012, and 2013–2021. Our analysis focused on two aspects: (1) the differences in the bibliometric characteristics of offshore wind power research between the three stages and (2) the main trends of the academic cooperation networks during these three stages. This paper could serve as a basis for the future development and planning of offshore wind power.

2. Materials and Methods

We focused on offshore wind farms as the research topic. The bibliometric analysis involved collecting the related literature and extracting the characteristics and cooperation of academic research during the three stages of the study period. The Web of Science (WOS) database was used for the literature search, which spanned 27 years from 1995 to 2021, to find basic information and cited references for articles on offshore wind farms. The articles were limited to those listed in the Social Sciences Citation Index, the Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Arts and Humanities Citation Index.
The countries, co-authorship, and keywords of the publications were selected based on the co-occurrence analysis using VOSviewer (version 1.6.18; Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands) [34]. In total, 1216 articles were retrieved. We extracted the authors, institutions, countries, and research topics of the articles to understand the global trends and characteristics of offshore wind power research. For each paper, countries received a score of one if they had any contributing authors. For example, for a paper with one author from Taiwan, one author from Japan, and two authors from the USA, each of the three contributing countries would receive a score of one. We also applied this method to counting the research categories. We established cooperation links between countries by counting the number of times countries contributed to the same paper. The international cooperation ratio (ICR) was calculated as the number of papers for which each country cooperated with other countries to the total number of papers that were published by that country [35,36].
We used VOSviewer(version 1.6.18; Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands) software to develop the networks of scientific articles, which connected and evaluated the association strength among countries, co-authors, and keywords. Higher numbers of co-occurrences between two nodes indicated a greater association strength and connection. The color in the network became vibrant when connections were strong. On the other hand, lighter colors showed remote connections between nodes [34]. Network maps of international cooperation were generated from the bibliometric analysis. These networks were used to identify the trends in cooperation between countries and authors, as well as the co-occurrence of keywords during each of the three stages within the study period.

3. Results

3.1. Bibliometric Analysis

Figure 1 shows the total number of articles that were published and cited each year. The highest number of published papers was in 2021, with 198 articles. The highest number of citations was in 2015, with 3206. During the first stage (1995–2005), less than five papers were published per year. Throughout the second stage (2006–2012), less than 30 papers were published per year. During the third stage (2013–2021), more than 30 papers were published per year. International cooperation between countries increased from 19% to 28% over the three stages of the study period. International cooperation particularly increased over the past 10 years.
In summary, 1216 articles from 58 countries were collected from the WOS database. We examined the number of articles that were published by countries to evaluate international cooperation. During the whole study period from 1995 to 2021, 881 articles were published by a single country and the other 335 papers were published by multiple countries, which indicated that international cooperation accounted for 28% of the literature.
Table 1 lists the numbers of papers that were published by different countries during each of the three stages. In total, 1216 articles were retrieved from the WOS database from 1995 to 2021. These were from 58 countries and 3437 authors and they were published in 310 journals. They contained 2451 keywords and 27,652 citations. Table 2 presents a network graph of the countries and authors that contributed to this research topic, as well as the co-occurrence statistics of keywords throughout the three stages. The five most cooperative countries were the UK, China, Denmark, the USA, and Germany, each with more than 20 connections. The UK published the most articles and had 30 connections spanning the globe. With regard to the authors, 2639 authors published one article, 499 authors published two articles, and 299 authors published more than two articles. Among the 58 countries, four countries did not cooperate with other countries on their contributions: Bulgaria, Morocco, the Philippines, and Romania. South Africa and Zimbabwe cooperated on a single article, so they had no connections with other countries.
Table 2 and Table 3 list the trends of the popular research topics during the three stages and the major contributing countries. The first stage (1995–2005) mainly focused on marine environmental engineering technologies; the main topic was energy and fuels, followed by electrical and electronics engineering, civil engineering, green and sustainable science and technology, and ocean engineering. The main contributing countries were Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the USA.
In the second stage (2006–2012), the main topic remained energy and fuels, followed by electrical and electronics engineering, green and sustainable science and technology, civil engineering, and ocean engineering. The main contributing countries were still Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the USA. In the third stage (2013–2021), the top three research topics were energy and fuels, electrical and electronics engineering, and green and sustainable science and technology. Most research focused on environmental science, oceanography, marine engineering, civil engineering, ecological engineering, and environmental management. The main contributing countries were China, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA.
Figure 2 shows the top 15 countries according to the number of publications, the number of international collaborations, and the ICR, which represented the cooperation status among the countries. The top 15 countries were the UK (n = 306), China (n = 220), Denmark (n = 151), the USA (n = 135), Germany (n = 113), Spain (n = 91), the Netherlands (n = 75), Taiwan (n = 64), South Korea (n = 54), Norway (n = 49), Australia (n = 42), France (n = 42), Belgium (n = 35), Canada (n = 35), Ireland (n = 33), Italy (n = 25), and Sweden (n = 24). We found no correlations between the total number of publications and the ICR. For example, the UK had the most publications but an ICR of only 38%. Australia, Italy, and Ireland had the highest ICRs of more than 70%. Thus, the number of publications on offshore wind power was not proportional to the amount of international cooperation.
Figure 3 shows the geographical distribution of the number of articles that were published by the different countries and shows that Europe has been leading research in and the development of offshore wind power since the early 1990s, following by North America and eastern Asia. The numbers of articles that were published by the major countries and their division into different research fields are listed in Table 3. We found that the main contributing countries focused their research on the following topics: energy and fuels, electrical and electronics engineering, and green and sustainable science and technology, as well as environmental science.

3.2. Network Characteristics

The network characteristics were identified using the diverse relationships between the country and author networks (Figure 4 and Figure 5) and the co-occurrence analysis of keywords (Figure 6). When “offshore wind farms” was taken as the main axis, the results showed that the keywords could be divided into seven clusters: “offshore wind farm”, “energy”, “design”, “model”, “system”, “reliability”, and “offshore installations”.

3.2.1. International Cooperation Networks

Figure 4 illustrates the development of international cooperation throughout the three stages of the study period. Figure 4a shows that four papers were published through international cooperation during the first stage (1995–2005) and that 17 papers were published by a single country. Three countries were involved in the international cooperation: Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany. Figure 4b shows that 27 papers were published through international cooperation during the second stage (2006–2012) and that 83 papers were published by a single country. Denmark was at the core of the international cooperation network.
There were 303 papers that were published through international cooperation during the third stage (2013–2021) and 781 papers were published by a single country (Figure 4c). The international cooperation network included 52 countries; the five countries with the most connections were the UK, China, Denmark, the USA, and Germany. Although the international cooperation network gradually expanded, the number of publications by a single country was still high.

3.2.2. Author Cooperation Networks

Figure 5 shows the author cooperation networks. Figure 5a shows that 51 authors were involved the first stage (1995–2005): 16 papers had co-authors and 5 papers had a single author; 6 authors published more than two articles and 45 authors published one article. Figure 5b shows that 379 authors were involved in the second stage (2006–2012): 99 papers had co-authors and 11 papers had a single author (for authors who published no more than five papers during the research period); 48 authors published more than two papers and 331 authors published a single article. Figure 5c shows that 3007 authors were involved in the third stage (2013–2021): 1052 papers had co-authors and 33 papers had a single author, which corresponded to the increasing trends of the number of authors and the number of papers with co-authors.

3.2.3. Keyword Co-occurrence Analysis

Figure 6 shows the keyword co-occurrence networks. Of the 21 papers that were published in the first stage (1995–2005), the two co-occurring keywords were “offshore” and “wind farms” (Figure 6a). Figure 6b shows that of the 110 papers that were published in the second stage (2006–2012), the keyword of “offshore wind farms” started to appear in research on turbines and wind power generation. The 1085 papers that were published in the third stage (2013–2021) covered a rich and diverse range of research topics, which could be divided into seven main groups: offshore wind farms, energy, design, models, wind farms, system, optimization, stability, design, transmission, and reliability (Figure 6c). The results from the keyword co-occurrence analysis reflected the development of offshore wind farms and the research progress over the past three decades, which corresponded to the three stages.

4. Discussion

Offshore wind farms have grown rapidly over the last three decades and their development is expected to continue in the future. In this study, we conducted a bibliometric analysis on papers that were published between 1995 and 2021 to reveal the global trends and characteristics of offshore wind farm research. Europe has been the center of the development of offshore wind farms. In the 1990s, small-scale demonstration offshore wind farms were built in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden. Since 2000, the UK, Germany, China, and the USA have become increasingly involved in the development of offshore wind farms [8]. Our analysis showed that the UK has the most complete cooperation network, with more than 30 partner countries worldwide. This was not surprising because the UK has large areas with good wind power potential that could be used to develop offshore wind farms. Currently, the UK and Germany have the largest installed capacities of offshore wind power in the world [37]. However, some Asian countries, such as China, Taiwan, and South Korea, and the USA have proposed new projects to substantially increase the generation of offshore wind power in their exclusive economic zones by 2030.
After the first 11 offshore wind turbines were installed in Denmark in 1991, the growth of offshore wind farms slowed over the following 10 years, with only a few more projects being constructed by Nordic and Baltic countries. This was because Denmark’s offshore wind farms were considered to be pilot projects and their operators had limited experience and knowledge of maintenance strategies. Therefore, many of the scientific papers that were published at this time focused on the technical feasibility of operating wind turbines at sea. Most of the studies from the first stage were devoted to the simulation and management of offshore wind farms to support maintenance and logistics planning, which reflected the appearance of keywords such as design, model, system, reliability, and offshore installations (Figure 6 and Table 2).
Starting from 2000, more than 100 offshore wind farms have begun operating around the world and nearly 1000 projects are currently under construction or in different phases of development, which indicates a period of fast growth within the wind power industry. As expected, the number of scientific papers that were published increased correspondingly, especially over the last 10 years (Figure 1). International cooperation also increased, especially by Australia and European countries, such as the Netherlands, Ireland, and Italy. The research topics involved challenges in control systems and wind farm damage due to strong winds, as well as economic efficiency opportunities and impact analyses. Various technology factors have needed to be considered, including the installation sites of wind turbines, the number of wind turbines, the cable connection designs, layout optimization technologies, and long-term wind conditions, as well as socioeconomic and technology issues regarding system reliability, economic benefits, carbon emissions, and safety [38,39].
As expected, our analysis showed that European countries accounted for the largest proportion of contributing countries to the research papers. Other countries in the top 20 included Australia, China, Taiwan, South Korea, the USA, and Canada (Table 3). Countries that became involved in the early 1990s (e.g., the UK, Denmark, and the USA) published research papers at this time to share their experiences in planning offshore wind farms (Table 3). However, most papers from the study period were published by a single country. It was only in the 2000s that the number of papers that involved cooperation with other countries began to increase. China began research into and the development of offshore wind farms in the 2000s and a large proportion of their papers were published in cooperation with other countries. These trends could reflect the differences in the development of offshore wind farms between regions, especially Europe and Asia. For example, in eastern Asia, Taiwan and South Korea showed less international cooperation in their research based on the ICR analysis (Figure 2).
In the 1990s, European and American countries attached great importance to the development of the green energy that can be provided by offshore wind turbines. This demand gradually shifted to Asia in the 2000s. In particular, eastern Asian countries have started to develop offshore wind farms, which reflects their considerable demands for sustainable energy. However, the overall trends in research differed among the eastern Asian countries. While papers from China were often in cooperation with other countries, Taiwan and South Korea showed significant increases in the number of published papers but more than half of their papers were published on their own. This was particularly prevalent in South Korea for most of its papers related to wind turbine installation.
Although offshore wind power has been developed since 1990, we found that few of the first studies focused on assessing its environmental, ecological, social, and economic impacts. For example, the Netherlands published a paper in 2001 that assessed the technical and economic feasibility of offshore wind power development in northern Europe; however, this paper did not consider ecological, environmental or social impacts [40].
In 2006, Denmark and the UK assessed the impacts of offshore wind turbines on dolphins and birds and found that dolphins would leave their original habitat during the construction and installation of wind turbines [41]. Their reports also indicated that offshore wind farms posed a very high potential risk to birds [42,43]. These findings demonstrated the necessity of collecting comprehensive data and sharing information and experiences through international cooperation. Follow-up studies have suggested that risk assessments should be carried out for ecologically sensitive species by monitoring quantitative indicators to reduce potentially irreversible impacts [44]. Many countries have begun to evaluate the impacts of offshore wind farms on the ecological environment since 2010. Research has shown that intensive construction activities near wind farms, including ship transportation, piling, and the disturbance of the seabed, causes the abundance of pelagic fish (e.g., mackerel, scad, and herring) to decrease by 40%–50% [45]. Simulation studies have shown that construction noise may induce avoidance behavior in fish species, such as sole, cod, and European sea bass, which could affect their migration patterns. Sudden exposure to irregular noise, such as that from ship engines, may cause urgent responses in animals that can affect their physiological condition [46].
On the other hand, studies have also shown that the numbers of fish and other species are greater around offshore wind farms than in the surrounding sea because the wind turbine bases act as artificial reefs. The number of fish that were caught in waters around offshore wind turbines was more than double that found in the previous survey. In addition, the size of fish schools increased and more pelagic predatory fish appeared, such as mackerel, cod, and flounder [46]. Our analysis showed that the earliest research on marine ecology and fish species diversity began in the early 2010s. For example, a report on benthic fish community structures in 2013 indicated that the spatial variability in the diversity and biological traits of demersal assemblages that inhabited highly disturbed environments was larger than any changes that were associated with the presence of wind turbines [47]. A 2015 analysis of the long-term effects of fish structures in the North Sea also showed that artificial reef structures were large enough to attract fish species that have a preference for rocky habitats but not large enough to attract species that inhabit the original seabed between wind turbines [48].
Research that is relevant to fisheries has been produced since 2020. For example, a French study performed ecological simulations and found that the trophic level transitions surrounding offshore wind farms were closely related to the seabed sediment, which formed an ecosystem comprising a detritus food chain [49]. We suggest that the systemic approach that was applied to the offshore wind farm in that study should be applied to other wind farms that have been developed by France and other European countries. This could also be applied to understanding the potential noise pollution of wind turbines and their effects on oceanic fish species. A Dutch study showed that offshore wind farms reduced fish populations but observed more swarming schools. They concluded that impulsive sounds disturb pelagic fish, which may make wind farms a more attractive habitat for other species [50]. A Polish study presented an approach for fisheries management that was based on marine spatial planning and successfully demonstrated the integration of reference cases from various industries across other countries and areas [51]. In the USA, recreational fishermen voiced concerns about future access to fishing grounds that could be affected by offshore wind farms but also agreed that such projects attract fish [52]. Overall, there are opportunities for wind farms and fisheries to coexist and develop, but more research is needed on their ecological and social impacts to enhance the understanding of stakeholders.
The papers that were selected in this study indicated that the most prevalent ecological impacts of offshore wind turbines are the noise and electromagnetic fields that are generated during installation and operation, which affect various marine animals and birds. The construction of offshore wind turbines may also change or disturb the marine environment, such as water quality, sediment, and topography. This may directly or indirectly affect the physiology or behavior of marine life and, in turn, the structures and functions of marine ecosystems, food webs, trophic levels, and even fishery resources [53]. Offshore wind turbines are installed at sea, which inevitably has non-negligible effects, both positive and negative, on marine ecosystems. The poor understanding of the adverse impacts may hinder the development of wind power, especially in ecologically vulnerable regions or developing countries [54]. Governments and authorities should aim to reduce the environmental damage from offshore wind farms to encourage the development of this industry and achieve energy security through effective management and monitoring [55]. For example, actions should be taken to mitigate the adverse impacts of offshore wind farms on vulnerable ecosystems and the other socioeconomic and technological issues during the design, construction, and operation phases [56,57].
The 10 journals with the highest numbers of related articles and their impact factors (IFs) are shown in Table A1. There were 93 papers from Energies (IF = 3.252). The top 10 most highly cited papers [58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67] are ranked in Table A2 to summarize their citation impacts and characterize the levels of cooperation. The most cited paper ([58]) examined the interest in the relationship between place attachment and human acceptance of environmental change behaviors as one of the pioneer studies in wind farm research. However, more problems and issues have been heavily researched, including control systems, damage due to strong winds, economic efficiency, and the costs of disposing old wind turbines. For example, Yaramasu et al. [59] summarized the technical merits and demerits of various wind energy conversion strategies and provided a list of current and future wind turbines, along with technical details. Hansen et al. [62] evaluated the impacts of turbulence intensity and atmospheric stability on power deficits. In addition, Nilsson and Bertling [64] reviewed the maintenance management of wind power systems that involved condition monitoring systems using a life cycle cost analysis and Snyder and Kaiser [65] conducted an ecological and economic cost–benefit analysis of offshore wind energy generation. These are important and highly cited papers that relate to the cost analysis of offshore wind farms.
To our knowledge, this paper is the first to present a systematic evaluation of the global development trends in offshore wind farm research, based on a review of 1216 peer-reviewed full-length articles. Our focus was on examining what type of research has been conducted over the past three decades and considerations for future research. This study could provide planners and developers with a better understanding of how ecological, environmental, societal, and economic aspects should be considered in the design and development of offshore wind farm projects.

5. Conclusions

We performed a bibliometric analysis to provide a comprehensive understanding of current global progress in offshore wind farm research. A period of rapid offshore wind farm development occurred after 2000, with Europe and Asia in particular showing increases in their international collaboration ratios. We suggest that research should be integrated to investigate and reduce the ecological and environmental damage that results from offshore wind farm development. This paper presented a systematic evaluation of the global developmental trends in offshore wind farm research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.-H.C. and N.-J.S.; methodology, C.-H.C. and N.-J.S.; visualization, C.-H.C. and N.-J.S.; writing—original draft, C.-H.C. and N.-J.S.; writing—review and editing, C.-H.C. and N.-J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was partly funded by the Fisheries Research Institute, the Council of Agriculture, Taiwan, through research projects 110AS-12.2.1-AI-A4 and 111AS-9.2.1-AI-A4.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data from this research will be available upon request to the authors.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of this manuscript and their insightful comments and suggestions, and Wei-Chuan Chiang and Chia-Hao Chang for their kind support and professional help with the data analysis and valuable comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. The top 10 journals with the highest numbers of related research articles in 2005–2021.
Table A1. The top 10 journals with the highest numbers of related research articles in 2005–2021.
RankJournalNumber of
Related
Articles		Impact
Factor
1Energies933.252
2Renewable Energy628.634
3Wind Energy443.710
4Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews3516.799
5IET Renewable Power Generation323.034
6IEEE Transactions On Power Systems307.362
Ocean Engineering304.372
8IEEE Transactions On Power Delivery254.825
9Energy228.857
IEEE Transactions On Energy Conversion224.877
IEEE Transactions On Sustainable Energy228.310
Table
Table A2. A summary of the top 10 most highly cited research articles in 2005–2021.
Table A2. A summary of the top 10 most highly cited research articles in 2005–2021.
RankTitleAuthorsTotal
Citation		Publication Year
1Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case studyDevine-Wright and Howes [58]4902010
2High-power wind energy conversion systems: State-of-the-art and emerging technologiesYaramasu et al. [59]4302015
3Impacts of wind power on thermal generation unit commitment and dispatchUmmels et al. [60]4162007
4Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birdsDrewitt and Langston [61]3942006
5The impact of turbulence intensity and atmospheric stability on power deficits due to wind turbine wakes at Horns Rev wind farmHansen et al. [62]2742012
6Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: Applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposalsEllis et al. [63]2602007
7Maintenance management of wind power systems using condition monitoring systems-Life cycle cost analysis for two case studiesNilsson and Bertling [64]2182007
8Ecological and economic cost-benefit analysis of offshore wind energySnyder and Kaiser [65]2142009
9Evaluating techniques for redirecting turbine wakes using SOWFAFleming et al. [66]1922014
10Comparison of wake model simulations with offshore wind turbine wake profiles measured by sodarBarthelmie et al. [67]1912006

References

  1. Steins, N.A.; Veraart, J.A.; Klostermann, J.E.M.; Poelman, M. Combining offshore wind farms, nature conservation and seafood: Lessons from a Dutch community of practice. Mar. Policy 2021, 126, 104371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Glasson, J.; Durning, B.; Welch, K.; Olorundami, T. The local socio-economic impacts of offshore wind farms. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2022, 95, 106783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yang, H.; Lin, C.Y. Promising strategies for the reduction of pollutant emissions from working vessels in offshore wind farms: The example of Taiwan. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Perveen, R.; Kishor, N.; Mohanty, S.R. Off-shore wind farm development: Present status and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 780–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Esteban, M.D.; Diez, J.J.; López, J.S.; Negro, V. Why offshore wind energy? Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 444–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bailey, H.; Brookes, K.L.; Thompson, P.M. Assessing environmental impacts of offshore wind farms: Lessons learned and recommendations for the future. Aquat. Biosyst. 2014, 10, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Amaro, N.; Egorov, A.; Glória, G. Fostering offshore wind integration in Europe through grid connection impact assessment. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Díaz, H.; Guedes Soares, C. Review of the current status, technology, and future trends of offshore wind farms. Ocean Eng. 2020, 209, 107381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wilhelmsson, D.; Malm, T. Fouling assemblages on offshore wind power plants and adjacent substrata. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2008, 79, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lindeboom, H.J.; Kouwenhoven, H.J.; Bergman, M.J.N.; Bouma, S.; Brasseur, S.; Daan, R.; Fijn, R.C.; de Haan, D.; Dirksen, S.; van Hal, R.; et al. Short-term ecological effects of an offshore wind farm in the Dutch coastal zone; a compilation. Environ. Res. Lett. 2011, 6, 035101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Langhamer, O. Artificial reef effect in relation to offshore renewable energy conversion: State of the art. Sci. World J. 2012, 2012, 386713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Bergström, L.; Kautsky, L.; Malm, T.; Rosenberg, R.; Wahlberg, M.; Åstrand Capetillo, N.; Wilhelmsson, D. Effects of offshore wind farms on marine wildlife–A generalized impact assessment. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 034012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wilhelmsson, D.; Malm, T.; Öhman, M.C. The influence of offshore wind power on demersal fish. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2006, 63, 775–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hemery, L.G.; Mackereth, K.F.; Tugade, L.G. What’s in my toolkit? A review of technologies for assessing changes in habitats caused by marine energy development. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Charles, J.; Kumar, R.; Kumar, D.V.; Baskar, D.; Arunsy, B.M.; Jenova, R.; Majid, M.A. Offshore wind energy status, challenges, opportunities, environmental impacts, occupational health, and safety management in India. Energy Environ. 2021, 32, 565–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tsai, Y.M.; Lin, C.Y. Investigation on improving strategies for navigation safety in the offshore wind farm in Taiwan Strait. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Abbasi, S.A.; Tabassum-Abbasi, A.T.; Abbasi, T. Impact of wind-energy generation on climate: A rising specter. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 59, 1591–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Poulsen, T.; Lema, R. Is the supply chain ready for the green transformation? The case of offshore wind logistics. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 73, 758–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Maslov, N.; Claramunt, C.; Wang, T.; Tang, T. Evaluating the visual impact of an offshore wind farm. Energy Procedia 2017, 105, 3095–3100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bouman, E.A.; Øberg, M.M.; Hertwich, E.G. Environmental impacts of balancing offshore wind power with compressed air energy storage (CAES). Energy 2016, 95, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Bush, D.; Hoagland, P. Public opinion and the environmental, economic and aesthetic impacts of offshore wind. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2016, 120, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kausche, M.; Adam, F.; Dahlhaus, F.; Großmann, J. Floating offshore wind–economic and ecological challenges of a TLP solution. Renew. Energy 2018, 126, 270–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ryan, K.; Danylchuk, A.; Jordaan, A. Consideration of scales in offshore wind environmental impact assessments. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2019, 75, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Albrechtsen, E. Occupational safety management in the offshore wind industry–status and challenges. Energy Procedia 2012, 24, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sobiech, C.; Droste, R.; Hahn, A.; Korte, H. Model-based development of health, safety, and environment plans and risk assessment for offshore operations. IFAC Proc. Vol. 2012, 45, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Seyr, H.; Muskulus, M. Safety indicators for the marine operations in the installation and operating phase of an offshore wind farm. Energy Procedia 2016, 94, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Preisser, A.M.; McDonough, R.V.; Harth, V. The physical performance of workers on offshore wind energy platforms: Is pre-employment fitness testing necessary and fair? Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2018, 92, 513–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Claudy, M.C.; Michelsen, C.; O’Driscoll, A.O. The diffusion of microgeneration technologies–Assessing the influence of perceived product characteristics on home owners’ willingness to pay. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 1459–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Caporale, D.; De Lucia, C. Social acceptance of on-shore wind energy in Apulia region (southern Italy). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 52, 1378–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Müller, S.; Backhaus, N.; Buchecker, M. Mapping meaningful places: A tool for participatory siting of wind turbines in Switzerland? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 69, 101573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kimmell, K.; Stolfi Stalenhoef, D. The cape wind offshore wind energy project: A case study of the difficult transition to renewable energy. Gold. Gate Univ. Environ. Law J. 2011, 5, 197. [Google Scholar]
  32. ten Brink, T.S.; Dalton, T. Perceptions of commercial and recreational fishers on the potential ecological impacts of the Block Island Wind Farm (US). Front. Mar. Sci. 2018, 5, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zheng, L.; Zheng, L.; Wei, L. Environmental impact and control measures of new wind power projects. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2011, 10, 2788–2791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wagner, C.S.; Brahmakulam, I.; Jackson, B.; Wagner, C.; Wong, A.; Yoda, T. Science and Technology Collaboration: Building Capacity in Developing Countries? Contract No.: MR-1357.0-WB; RAND Science and Technology: Santa Monica, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  36. Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z.; Miao, L.; Murray, D.; Robinson-García, N.; Costas, R.; Sugimoto, C.R. A global comparison of scientific mobility and collaboration according to national scientific capacities. Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 2018, 3, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dao, C.D.; Kazemtabrizi, B.; Crabtree, C.J. Offshore wind turbine reliability and operational simulation under uncertainties. Wind Energy 2020, 23, 1919–1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wu, Y.K.; Wu, W.C.; Zeng, J.J. Key issues on the design of an offshore wind farm layout and its equivalent model. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chen, J.; Kim, M.H. Review of recent offshore wind turbine research and optimization methodologies in their design. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cockerill, T.; Kühn, M.; van Bussel, G.; Bierbooms, W.; Harrison, R. Combined technical and economic evaluation of the northern European offshore wind resource. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2001, 89, 689–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Carstensen, J.; Henriksen, O.D.; Teilmann, J. Impacts of offshore wind farm construction on harbour porpoises: Acoustic monitoring of echolocation activity using porpoise detectors (T-PODs). Mar. Ecol. Progr Ser. 2006, 321, 295–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Drewitt, A.L.; Langston, R.H. Collision effects of wind-power generators and other obstacles on birds. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2008, 1134, 233–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fox, A.D.; Desholm, M.; Kahlert, J.; Christensen, T.K.; Petersen, I.B.K. Information needs to support environmental impact assessments of the effects of European marine offshore wind farms on birds. IBIS 2006, 148, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Desholm, M. Avian sensitivity to mortality: Prioritising migratory bird species for assessment at proposed wind farms. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2672–2679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Dähne, M.; Gilles, A.; Lucke, K.; Peschko, V.; Adler, S.; Krügel, K.; Sundermeyer, J.; Siebert, U. Effects of pile-driving on harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) at the first offshore wind farm in Germany. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 025002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Reichert, K.; Gusky, M.; Gutow, L. Vervollständigung der Zeitreihen Während der Betriebsphase und Ermittlung von Veränderungen des Benthos Durch Ausweitung des Anlagenbezogenen Effektmonitorings; Zwischenbericht 2011 zur Ökologische Begleitforschung am Offshore-Testfeldvorhaben “Alpha Ventus”; Electronic Publication Information Center, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Helmholtz Association: Berlin, Germany, 2012; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  47. Atalah, J.; Fitch, J.; Coughlan, J.; Chopelet, J.; Coscia, I.; Farrell, E. Diversity of demersal and megafaunal assemblages inhabiting sandbanks of the Irish Sea. Mar.Biodivers. 2013, 43, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Stenberg, C.; Støttrup, J.; Deurs, M.V.; Berg, C.W.; Dinesen, G.E.; Mosegaard, H.; Grome, T.; Leonhard, S.B. Long-term effects of an offshore wind farm in the North Sea on fish communities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2015, 528, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pezy, J.P.; Raoux, A.; Dauvin, J.C. The environmental impact from an offshore wind farm: Challenge and evaluation methodology based on an ecosystem approach. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 114, 106302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kok, J.F.; Adebiyi, A.A.; Albani, S.; Balkanski, Y.; Checa-Garcia, R.; Chin, M.; Colarco, P.R.; Hamilton, D.S.; Huang, Y.; Ito, A.; et al. Contribution of the world’s main dust source regions to the global cycle of desert dust. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2021, 10, 8169–8193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Psuty, I.; Zaucha, J.; Mytlewski, A.; Marta, S.; Lena, S. The use of the contribution margin on the valorisation of polish fisheries for maritime spatial planning. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2021, 211, 105751. [Google Scholar]
  52. Smythe, T.; Bidwell, D.; Moore, A.; Smith, H.; McCann, J. Beyond the beach: Tradeoffs in tourism and recreation at the first offshore wind farm in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 70, 101726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Leung, D.; Yang, Y. Wind energy development and its environmental impact: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 1031–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Dai, K.; Bergot, A.; Liang, C.; Xiang, W.N.; Huang, Z. Environmental issues associated with wind energy–A review. Renew. Energy 2015, 75, 911–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Willsteed, E.; Gill, A.B.; Birchenough, S.; Jude, S. Assessing the cumulative environmental effects of marine renewable energy developments: Establishing common ground. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 577, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Vanclay, F.; Hanna, P. Conceptualizing Company Response to Community Protest: Principles to Achieve a Social License to Operate. Land 2019, 8, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Alem, M.; Herberz, T.; Karanayil, V.S.; Fardin, A.A.H. A Qualitative meta-analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of offshore wind farms. Sustinere: J. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 4, 155–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Devine-Wright, P.; Howes, Y. Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yaramasu, V.; Wu, B.; Sen, P.C.; Kouro, S.; Narimani, M. High-power wind energy conversion systems: State-of-the-art and emerging technologies. Proc. IEEE 2015, 103, 740–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ummels, B.C.; Gibescu, M.; Pelgrum, E.; Kling, W.L.; Brand, A.J. Impacts of wind power on thermal generation unit commitment and dispatch. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2007, 22, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Drewitt, A.L.; Langston, R.H. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. IBIS 2006, 148, 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hansen, K.S.; Barthelmie, R.J.; Jensen, L.E.; Sommer, A. The impact of turbulence intensity and atmospheric stability on power deficits due to wind turbine wakes at Horns Rev wind farm. Wind Energy 2012, 15, 183–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ellis, G.; Barry, J.; Robinson, C. Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2007, 50, 517–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Nilsson, J.; Bertling, L. Maintenance management of wind power systems using condition monitoring systems–Life cycle cost analysis for two case studies. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2007, 22, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Snyder, B.; Kaiser, M.J. Ecological and economic cost-benefit analysis of offshore wind energy. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 1567–1578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Fleming, P.A.; Gebraad, P.M.O.; Lee, S.; van Wingerden, J.W.; Johnson, K.; Churchfield, M.; Michalakes, J.; Spalart, P.; Moriarty, P. Evaluating techniques for redirecting turbine wakes using SOWFA. Renew. Energy 2014, 70, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Barthelmie, R.J.; Larsen, G.C.; Frandsen, S.T.; Folkerts, L.; Rados, K.; Pryor, S.C.; Lange, B.; Schepers, G. Comparison of wake model simulations with offshore wind turbine wake profiles measured by sodar. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2006, 23, 888–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jmse 10 01339 g001 550
Figure 1. The annual number of WOS papers related to offshore wind farm research that were published (blue bars) and cited (red line).
Figure 1. The annual number of WOS papers related to offshore wind farm research that were published (blue bars) and cited (red line).
Jmse 10 01339 g001
Jmse 10 01339 g002 550
Figure 2. The number of WOS papers related to offshore wind farm research by country (blue bars) and the corresponding international cooperation ratio (ICR) (red line).
Figure 2. The number of WOS papers related to offshore wind farm research by country (blue bars) and the corresponding international cooperation ratio (ICR) (red line).
Jmse 10 01339 g002
Jmse 10 01339 g003 550
Figure 3. A map showing the countries that published WOS papers related to offshore wind farm research: the UK, China, Denmark, the USA, Germany, and Spain published > 100 papers; the Netherlands, Taiwan, South Korea, and Norway published 60–100 papers; Australia, France, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, Italy, and Sweden published 20–60 papers.
Figure 3. A map showing the countries that published WOS papers related to offshore wind farm research: the UK, China, Denmark, the USA, Germany, and Spain published > 100 papers; the Netherlands, Taiwan, South Korea, and Norway published 60–100 papers; Australia, France, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, Italy, and Sweden published 20–60 papers.
Jmse 10 01339 g003
Jmse 10 01339 g004 550
Figure 4. The international cooperation networks for offshore wind farm research: (a) first stage, (b) second stage, and (c) third stage.
Figure 4. The international cooperation networks for offshore wind farm research: (a) first stage, (b) second stage, and (c) third stage.
Jmse 10 01339 g004
Jmse 10 01339 g005 550
Figure 5. The author cooperation networks for offshore wind farm research: (a) first stage, (b) second stage, and (c) third stage.
Figure 5. The author cooperation networks for offshore wind farm research: (a) first stage, (b) second stage, and (c) third stage.
Jmse 10 01339 g005
Jmse 10 01339 g006 550
Figure 6. The keyword co-occurrence networks for offshore wind farm research: (a) first stage, (b) second stage, and (c) third stage.
Figure 6. The keyword co-occurrence networks for offshore wind farm research: (a) first stage, (b) second stage, and (c) third stage.
Jmse 10 01339 g006
Table
Table 1. The selected WOS papers related to offshore wind farm research by country during the three stages.
Table 1. The selected WOS papers related to offshore wind farm research by country during the three stages.
Country1995–20052006–20122013–2021Total
UK439263306
China 6214220
Denmark1324113150
USA213120135
Germany22091113
Spain198191
Netherland2116275
Taiwan 85664
South Korea 74754
Norway 44549
Australia 14142
France 14142
Belgium 13435
Canada 33235
Ireland 13233
Italy 12425
Sweden 42024
Other 11208219
Sum2416415241712
Total Papers2114310521216
Note: One paper could have multiple contributing countries. The total number of papers that were analyzed in this study is shown in the last row.
Table
Table 2. The research fields of the WOS papers related to offshore wind farms during the three stages.
Table 2. The research fields of the WOS papers related to offshore wind farms during the three stages.
WOS Research FieldEnergy FuelsEngineering, Electrical ElectronicGreen, Sustainable Science, TechnologyEnvironmental SciencesOceanographyMarine Freshwater BiologyOcean EngineeringCivil EngineeringMarine EngineeringMechanical EngineeringEnvironmental StudiesTotal
1995–2005843 25 8838
2006–2012433814118763 126148
2013–20213822621681121017270696231251354
Sum4333041851231097978776251391540
Note: One paper could be included in multiple research fields. The total number of research fields is shown in the last row.
Table
Table 3. The research fields of the WOS papers related to offshore wind farms by the major contributing countries.
Table 3. The research fields of the WOS papers related to offshore wind farms by the major contributing countries.
WOS Research FieldEnergy FuelsEngineering, Electrical ElectronicGreen, Sustainable Science, TechnologyEnvironmental SciencesOceanographyMarine Freshwater BiologyOcean EngineeringCivil EngineeringMarine EngineeringMechanical EngineeringEnvironmental StudiesTotal
UK8352382213221815122016311
China812828211421151111176253
Denmark463720768126746159
USA433614676126712140
Germany292014941063555110
Spain2821184941311545122
Netherlands2314135354334481
Taiwan152052426532468
South Korea1512114434514366
Norway201386244322266
Australia19464345121150
France151184141311 49
Belgium12964 3 11137
Canada178611112 1240
Ireland10753222222542
Italy7431113111 23
Sweden5723 3 20
Sum46830320510674103106776370621637
Note: One paper could be included in multiple research fields and have multiple contributing countries. The total number of research fields is shown in the last row.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, C.-H.; Su, N.-J. Global Trends and Characteristics of Offshore Wind Farm Research over the Past Three Decades: A Bibliometric Analysis. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1339. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10101339

AMA Style

Chen C-H, Su N-J. Global Trends and Characteristics of Offshore Wind Farm Research over the Past Three Decades: A Bibliometric Analysis. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2022; 10(10):1339. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10101339

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Chia-Hsiang, and Nan-Jay Su. 2022. "Global Trends and Characteristics of Offshore Wind Farm Research over the Past Three Decades: A Bibliometric Analysis" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 10, no. 10: 1339. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10101339

APA Style

Chen, C.-H., & Su, N.-J. (2022). Global Trends and Characteristics of Offshore Wind Farm Research over the Past Three Decades: A Bibliometric Analysis. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10(10), 1339. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10101339

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop