Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40045997›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2025

Multicriteria models provide enhanced insight for siting US offshore wind.

Rudolph Santarromana, Ahmed Abdulla, M Granger Morgan, Joana Mendonça

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rudolph SantarromanaDepartment of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0466-2856
Ahmed AbdullaDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5B6.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4980-1717
M Granger MorganDepartment of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1384-5814
Joana MendonçaCenter for Innovation, Technology, and Policy Research (IN+), Department of Engineering and Management, Instituto Superior Técnico-Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon 1049-001, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4151-7391

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Offshore wind can be a key contributor to energy system decarbonization, but its deployment in certain regions has been slow, partly due to opposition from disparate interests. Failure to sufficiently address the concerns of external stakeholders could continue to hamper deployment. Here, we use a multi criteria model to assess all possible sites in a 2 km × 2 km grid of all potential locations in continental US federal waters, contrasting the perspectives of developers and other stakeholders. Our model elucidates how developers and policymakers could better approach future deployment. First, while developers prefer larger plants, we find that these facilities are more fragile-they are sensitive to location, and their impacts are more uncertain than smaller plants. Second, there is 600 GW of capacity where both developer and stakeholder interests align-developing these locations should be prioritized. Third, there are few areas on the US West Coast where developer and stakeholder preferences align, suggesting a need to reduce stakeholder-plant interactions or locate facilities in deeper waters than current technology allows.

Indexed as

competing interestsoffshore windPhysical Sciences > Sustainability Sciencerenewable energysitingsustainability

Identifiers

PMID40045997
PMCPMC11879181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.