aquaculture. Despite this fear of competition, the design team decided not to limit the
design by this argument, as this essentially was a plea for keeping a monopoly of the
coastal aquaculture. In the Atlantic case, the final design included a combination of
floating offshore wind turbines and wave energy generators. Stakeholders argued for
the importance to select a site where conflicts with other interests are minimal.
Multiuse platforms were considered to be able to provide revenues to both the
local fishing community and local businesses. In the Baltic case, the eventual design
combined wind turbines and offshore aquaculture by floating fish cages with trout/
salmon production. This combination was interesting given the large-scale development of offshore wind and a technical risk assessment of the multiuse platforms
appeared to be important. The stakeholders pointed out that there should be no
negative effects on ecological conditions and that the artificial reefs on the wind
turbine foundations should be protected as they have positive ecological effects.
From Chap. 3, it is clear that in the future, other projects should provide the
necessary resources for creating an understanding of the locality as it is crucial for
identifying the relevant stakeholders, their roles, objectives and resources. When
eliciting stakeholders’ view, selection bias should be avoided during both the
preparation and interview stages. Thus, it is recommended to involve the relevant
set of stakeholders for specific decisions. For example, in a technical scoping phase,
it makes sense to only involve a small group of relevant experts, and in later project
phases, stakeholders should be asked to pronounce themselves on few and reasonably well-defined design options that are possible for the specific offshore multiuse
platform. Finally, this chapter demonstrated that shared knowledge and experience
can contribute to more efficient and sustainable designs of offshore multiuse platforms. Acknowledging the stakeholders’ perspectives enables surpassing potential
obstacles and adjusts the design process is necessary. On the contrary, no dialogue or
not considering stakeholders’ point of view leads to risk of inefficient processes, the
need to repeat procedures or even implement suboptimal solutions.
Chapter 4 presents the results of a comparative financial analysis performed to the
three Oceans of Tomorrow projects. A homogeneous financial analysis of the Ocean
of Tomorrow projects is developed, with the objective to test financial performance
for all projects under the same assumptions and hypothesis, obtaining indicators that
allow comparing the results between projects and comparing them themselves. In the
same direction, a sensitivity analysis that enables the identification of the ‘critical’
variables of the project is carried out. Such variables are those whose variations,
positive or negative, have the largest impact on the project’s financial and/or
economic performance. Moreover, a risk assessment of the projects is being calculated in this chapter.
This chapter has presented a transversal analysis of the outputs generated through
different projects, trying to clarify the comparison among the existing alternatives
and testing them from a standard economic and financial point of view. The results
based on the comparison of different projects summarized in this chapter show a
homogeneous ranking on the viability of the different alternatives and their business
possibilities. The leadership in offshore activities is clearly located in renewable
energy, and therefore the most promising combination proposals should be those
13 Conclusions and Recommendations
247
design by this argument, as this essentially was a plea for keeping a monopoly of the
coastal aquaculture. In the Atlantic case, the final design included a combination of
floating offshore wind turbines and wave energy generators. Stakeholders argued for
the importance to select a site where conflicts with other interests are minimal.
Multiuse platforms were considered to be able to provide revenues to both the
local fishing community and local businesses. In the Baltic case, the eventual design
combined wind turbines and offshore aquaculture by floating fish cages with trout/
salmon production. This combination was interesting given the large-scale development of offshore wind and a technical risk assessment of the multiuse platforms
appeared to be important. The stakeholders pointed out that there should be no
negative effects on ecological conditions and that the artificial reefs on the wind
turbine foundations should be protected as they have positive ecological effects.
From Chap. 3, it is clear that in the future, other projects should provide the
necessary resources for creating an understanding of the locality as it is crucial for
identifying the relevant stakeholders, their roles, objectives and resources. When
eliciting stakeholders’ view, selection bias should be avoided during both the
preparation and interview stages. Thus, it is recommended to involve the relevant
set of stakeholders for specific decisions. For example, in a technical scoping phase,
it makes sense to only involve a small group of relevant experts, and in later project
phases, stakeholders should be asked to pronounce themselves on few and reasonably well-defined design options that are possible for the specific offshore multiuse
platform. Finally, this chapter demonstrated that shared knowledge and experience
can contribute to more efficient and sustainable designs of offshore multiuse platforms. Acknowledging the stakeholders’ perspectives enables surpassing potential
obstacles and adjusts the design process is necessary. On the contrary, no dialogue or
not considering stakeholders’ point of view leads to risk of inefficient processes, the
need to repeat procedures or even implement suboptimal solutions.
Chapter 4 presents the results of a comparative financial analysis performed to the
three Oceans of Tomorrow projects. A homogeneous financial analysis of the Ocean
of Tomorrow projects is developed, with the objective to test financial performance
for all projects under the same assumptions and hypothesis, obtaining indicators that
allow comparing the results between projects and comparing them themselves. In the
same direction, a sensitivity analysis that enables the identification of the ‘critical’
variables of the project is carried out. Such variables are those whose variations,
positive or negative, have the largest impact on the project’s financial and/or
economic performance. Moreover, a risk assessment of the projects is being calculated in this chapter.
This chapter has presented a transversal analysis of the outputs generated through
different projects, trying to clarify the comparison among the existing alternatives
and testing them from a standard economic and financial point of view. The results
based on the comparison of different projects summarized in this chapter show a
homogeneous ranking on the viability of the different alternatives and their business
possibilities. The leadership in offshore activities is clearly located in renewable
energy, and therefore the most promising combination proposals should be those
13 Conclusions and Recommendations
247