# Transatlantic Coastal Community Voices on Floating Offshore Wind Farms With Artificial Reefs

Antoine Dubois, Alison Bates, Angela Lin, Franck Schoefs, Pierre-alexandre Mahieu

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Antoine Dubois, Alison Bates, Angela Lin, Franck Schoefs, Pierre-alexandre Mahieu. Transatlantic Coastal Community Voices on Floating Offshore Wind Farms With Artificial Reefs. Wind Energy, 2025, 28 (6), pp.e70021. 10.1002/we.70021. hal-05404931

HAL Id: hal-05404931

https://hal.science/hal-05404931v1

Submitted on 8 Dec 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

RESEARCH ARTICLE

OPEN ACCESS

# Transatlantic Coastal Community Voices on Floating Offshore Wind Farms With Artificial Reefs

Antoine Dubois¹,² ID | Alison Bates³ ID | Angela Lin³ | Franck Schoefs¹,²,⁴ ID | Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu⁵ ID

¹ISOMer UR2160, Nantes Université, Nantes, France | ²Nantes Université, CNRS IUML, FR CNRS 3473, Nantes, France | ³Department of Environmental Studies, Colby College, Waterville, Maine, USA | ⁴Nantes Université, École Centrale Nantes, CNRS GeM, UMR 6183, Nantes, France | ⁵LEMNA, Nantes Université, Nantes, France

**Correspondence:** Alison Bates (awbates@colby.edu)

**Received:** 2 November 2023 | **Revised:** 16 July 2024 | **Accepted:** 25 March 2025

**Funding:** This work was supported by Buck Lab for Climate and Environment at Colby College, Region de la Loire under the WEAMEC community, and European Community under the FEDER program.

**Keywords:** attitudes | biocolonization | energy | France | public perceptions | United States

## ABSTRACT

In the United States (US) and in France, offshore wind farms (OWFs) and floating offshore wind farms (FOWFs) have faced political concerns and, in some cases, strong stakeholder opposition. Respecting the views of local communities is critical for a socially responsible energy transition. The development of such projects should also minimize impacts on the environment. This study aimed to assess and compare US and French coastal communities' perceptions of OWFs and FOWFs and to understand how artificial reefs may affect attitudes towards FOWFs. In 2022, semi-structured interviews were conducted with local people in the state of Maine (US) and in the Pays-de-la-Loire region (France) near planned or existing floating offshore wind projects. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Overall, a remarkable similarity was found between the regions, where both American and French communities were generally supportive of OWFs, and FOWFs in particular. Most concerns were related to biodiversity impacts, economic impacts (fisheries and economics) or aesthetic impacts. Differences between countries were seen in secondary concerns such as noise impacts or maintenance issues. Artificial reefs were largely viewed positively, although people were skeptical about the benefits and concerned about material and cost. Artificial reefs did not change people's opinions about FOWFs, and instead, they reinforced attitudes of opponents and supporters. People showed strong agreement upon their confidence in scientific leadership for such future projects, expressing a need for collaboration between academic researchers, governments, private companies, and seafarers.

## 1 | Introduction

In recent decades, heavy reliance on fossil fuels across various sectors has had significant environmental consequences. This dependence is expected to increase greenhouse gas emissions unless there are changes in energy consumption trends. To address this, governments have committed to reducing emissions and limiting global temperature rise under the Paris Climate Agreement. They are investing in renewable energies

to mitigate emissions and transition towards sustainable energy solutions [1-4].

Offshore wind farms (OWFs) were first developed in Denmark in 1991. However, it was during the 2010s that this technology took off, with the construction of multiple OWFs across Europe with pioneering countries such as the United Kingdom and Germany [5, 6]. The marine environment offers larger areas and more stable, consistent winds than terrestrial

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2025 The Author(s). *Wind Energy* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
locations, driving the growth of these turbines due to better energy yields. This aligns with anticipated future energy demands, as the United Nations projects that 80% of the global population will reside within a 70-km stretch along coastlines by 2050 [7, 8].

The development of OWF projects has not been without impacts, which has led to opposition to projects in affected communities. Acceptance of renewable energy and offshore wind is driven by a complex set of factors that include beliefs and underlying values and can be place-dependent. The concept of social acceptance in energy systems is widely referenced to the “triangle” of acceptance, whereby a project would need to gain market, community, and socio-political support [9]. Attitudes towards offshore wind are nuanced, stemming from people’s convictions in addition to more practical conflicts with space or viewshed. Aesthetic values are often cited in wind energy studies, whereby people both appreciate the look of wind turbines on the seascape, or conversely believe the wind turbines will destroy the view [10]. Aesthetic impacts have in fact driven the push to move turbines further from people’s views, in part to mitigate opposition and for yield reasons [11]. Placing turbines in the ocean or near-shore environment does not eliminate visual disamenities that are prevalent onshore near communities, and space use conflicts remain. Indeed, attachments to the seascape can further drive opposition to wind energy projects [12].

Opposition may be driven by concerns over impacts to marine activities like coastal recreation, tourism, and fishing. Community members, tourists, and recreationists are also apprehensive about OWF projects [8], and attitudes towards offshore wind may be driven by profound human principles such as altruism [13]. Notable concerns are documented among fishing communities, where access to culturally or economically important fishing grounds may be compromised. Fishing communities have expressed concerns about their potential reduced yields from fishing if OWFs are developed, as well as cultural losses to historically important fishing grounds [14, 15]. A member of a collective against OWF development in France proclaimed “We are here to denounce the propaganda speeches made to us” [16]. Fishing communities in the United States have also engaged in anti-wind actions during events such as at-sea protests aboard fishing vessels [17]. Furthermore, it has been found that seafarers, such as fishermen, have a different relationship with their environment than others [18], with a strong attachment to places that are physically distant and in deeper waters than coastal areas.

Opposition can also be driven by ethical values and beliefs about equity and justice. Perception of fairness and trust in decision-making institutions has been linked to support or opposition in offshore wind development [19]. A sense of fairness among stakeholders of wind farm development is one of the essential keys to harmonious and socially responsible construction. Ethical values also influence values around environmental concern, which is sometimes fraught. Once termed the “green-on-green” debate [20], environmental advocates are faced with the trade-offs weighing environmental risks of energy production against the climate benefits of the clean energy transition.

Indeed, some protest movements are driven by the environmental impact that such structures can have [21] and are similarly observed along the United States' east coast [22] and in North Europe [23]. For example, during the construction phase for monopile wind turbines that currently make up more than 80% of installed offshore wind turbines in the world [24], hammering or drilling is carried out during installation, which creates noise. This noise can have lasting and significant impacts for nearby species, including protected or endangered species such as marine mammals [25], scallops [26], or juvenile lobsters [27]. Disturbances from electromagnetic fields can confuse certain wildlife depending on their sensitivity and use of electromagnetic fields [28]; seabird collisions with wind turbine blades are decried, among other impacts [29–31].

Amidst strong opposition, developers and governments have quickly shifted their focus further offshore, taking advantage of technological advances in the field to develop in deeper waters, primarily using fixed-bottom jacket foundations, but increasingly using floating designs. For example, the European Community decided in 2022 to reach 300 GW of offshore wind energy in 2050 [32] plus 40 GW of emerging technology such as floating offshore wind farms (FOWF). Over the course of a decade, the advent of floating wind turbine technology has enabled the establishment of wind farms further out to sea, where consistent and powerful winds prevail, changing the visual impact associated with nearshore turbines [33]. The replacement of fixed-bottom foundations with anchors and mooring lines limits the environmental impact of both installation and decommissioning, but in deeper waters [34]. This breakthrough technology is needed since fixed-bottom foundations have been shown not to be economically competitive for water depths deeper than 50–60 m [35]. Scotland pioneered the first entirely operational FOWF in 2017, situated at an average depth of 100 m [36].

An inevitable consequence observed on submerged structures is the colonization by marine organisms, a phenomenon well-documented in the industrial sector in various seas with significant biodiversity increase [37, 38]. Offshore wind turbines are no exception: benthic organisms like bivalves, anemones, polychaetes, and crustaceans attach themselves to the hard surfaces of the turbines and the mooring lines [14, 36, 39, 40]. This can induce an ecological succession leading to the colonization of the structures by perennial species, known as the reef effect.

Artificial reefs (ARs) are defined as “natural or human origin deployed purposefully on the seafloor to influence physical, biological, or socio-economic processes related to living marine resources” [41] and have a reef effect. Habitat heterogeneity, on a small to medium scale, creates ecological niches favorable to different species or life stages that can colonize these ARs. Implementations in favor of biodiversity are at the origin of the eco-engineering model [42]. This conceptualization is defined as a specific design of infrastructures by minimizing the impact on the environment while benefiting humans and nature [43–45]. Eco-engineering promotes multi-functionality of infrastructures and better environmental integration and can be cost-effective [43, 46]. Research and engineering companies have been commissioned by governments to carry out this type of development for wind farms, as was the case in the Netherlands [47]. To mitigate and compensate for the environmental impact
of these structures (i.e., ecological compensation), the idea of implementing ARs has emerged [45]. Therefore, these AR-enhanced developments could be beneficial in achieving greater societal acceptability and in reducing the potential impact on the seabed [48].

In the midst of the energy transition away from fossil fuels, understanding how individuals perceive energy technologies becomes essential to make these transitions as socially responsible as possible [49]. Characterizing attitudes towards OWFs is difficult in part because they are not known to be generalizable, even within a single community. Indeed, depending on a multitude of factors, people perceive development differently. For example, fishermen are intrinsically linked to marine space and therefore feel greater concern, while others are more distant and possibly less concerned or differently concerned [6, 50, 51]. This inherently makes flawed comparisons or extrapolations of case studies with other communities, cities, or even other countries. Simultaneously, policymakers aim to grasp both overarching trends and location-specific sentiments regarding offshore wind development. This endeavor is essential for enhancing decision-making processes and optimizing the results of proposed projects. Country-to-country comparisons undertaken systematically may help policymakers draw broad conclusions about attitudes towards technology trends, while detailed cases provide locally relevant context and nuance for local decision-makers. Such studies can contribute to the knowledge base underlying challenges and opportunities in the energy transition.

## 2 | Study Aims

The primary aim of this study was to make comparisons of public attitudes towards floating offshore wind in two countries facing similar energy development pressures and pushback from fishing-dependent communities. We also identify areas of commonality and difference among coastal communities in France and the United States (Gulf of Maine) towards floating wind turbines enhanced with an ecological remediation solution—ARs that are purpose-built and placed undersea at the mooring line anchors. This allowed us to investigate perceptions of ARs as an approach to mitigate habitat loss and enhance biodiversity within a wind farm and how people perceive R&D led by public versus private entities. The country-country comparison allows us to assess the extent to which attitudes towards offshore wind and ARs are localized or generalizable. We therefore pose the following research questions:

1. What are the attitudes and perceptions of fixed-base and floating offshore wind in US and French coastal, fishing-dependent communities?

2. How do different communities perceive the trade-offs of artificial reefs (ARs) attached to floating turbines?

3. Does the provision of ARs attached to wind turbine substructures affect perceptions of floating wind?

4. Are perceptions of floating wind and ARs similar across geographic regions facing similar development pressures?

## 3 | Methods

### 3.1 | Study Design

The research design of this study implemented a qualitative approach to address the research questions. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with coastal community members in the United States and France to compile a broad spectrum of perceptions about both OWFs, FOWFs, and the potential benefits of ARs. The protocol was set up to cover several key areas of inquiry around OWFs, floating wind turbines, ARs, and trade-offs. Data collection took place from July to October 2022 using intercept sampling. The interviews were first undertaken in the United States during July 2022 and then in France during September to October 2022 to examine local community perceptions in both countries through a cross-country comparison.

### 3.2 | Study Location

We sampled eight different cities in two transatlantic countries with similar characteristics to represent locations that are encountered for FOWF development. Both the northeastern United States and France are facing strong development interests of OWFs in general and FOWFs in deeper waters. In these two different countries, some regions are, or will be, hotspots of FOWF development: the Gulf of Maine (USA) and Pays de la Loire (France). In addition, both locations are characterized by a strong commercial and recreational fishing history, and also by seasonal tourism and coastal culture.

#### 3.2.1 | Maine, USA

Maine, steeped in natural beauty and cultural legacy, has deep economic ties to forestry and lobstering rooted in its history. Maine's identity has been shaped by maritime traditions influenced by its extensive coastline, coastal communities, landscapes, and marine-based industry such as shipbuilding. Maine's vast wind resources along its coastline combined with the growing demand for renewable energy position it favorably for OWFs development. The state legislature has set goals for offshore wind development, with the 2023 publication of the "Offshore Wind Roadmap" and a 3000-MW procurement target for offshore wind by 2040. The deep waters in the Gulf of Maine are best suited for floating technology. Because of Maine's climate targets, offshore wind goals, and proximity to large energy markets, Maine stands as a prime candidate to lead US deepwater offshore wind initiatives [52]. Development interest has concentrated where research-scale developments have been proposed, and existing coastal infrastructure has been explored for grid interconnection and port infrastructure for staging areas. These areas are also important for tourism, recreation, and sport and commercial fishing. We therefore selected five communities in midcoast Maine that have historic and contemporary maritime culture and heritage and are geographically proximate to proposed FOWFs (Figure 1): Belfast, Camden, Rockland, Rockport, and Brunswick.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 1** | Sampling locations in France and in the United States with existing and proposed offshore wind projects. Fixed-base and floating turbines are represented accordingly. Figure credit: Manny Gimond.</figcaption></figure>

### 3.2.2 | Pays de la Loire, France

The Pays de la Loire region is made up of five departments situated along the west coast of France, south of Brittany. Among these departments, Loire Atlantique and Vendée have a strong affinity with the ocean, and various activities, particularly shipbuilding with internationally renowned local companies such as Bénéteau, and fishing, form the basis of their deep connection with the sea. There are several major fishing ports, and these two departments alone contribute more than 9% of the total fishing revenue of mainland France [53–57]. The offshore wind industry can rely on the regional maritime infrastructure and companies, centers of excellence, and research laboratories, thus facilitating the advancement of OWF projects in France. This part of France's Atlantic coast is home to numerous planned OWF projects that will reach a total capacity of over 2 GW by 2025, with several monopiles and a FOWF. The Pays de la Loire region attracts tourism, and this can be seen in the number of secondary houses that is particularly high on the coast with over 10% of residences [58]. Among the coastal cities, we selected two that are either locations of seasonal tourism or priority fishing and maritime activities (Figure 1): Saint-Jean-de-Monts and Saint-Gilles-Croix-de-Vie. We also surveyed the biggest city in the region, Nantes.

### 3.3 | Respondent Selection

The sample (i.e., interviewees) of this study consists of a total of 44 individuals: 30 in the United States and 14 in France. The protocol ensured that respondents were part-time or full-time coastal residents. All of the interviewees were ocean users in

different ways: fishers, boating recreationists, to summer beach users. Of all of the interviewees, 59% identified as female and 41% as male (Appendix 1).

### 3.4 | Data Collection

The interview protocol was prepared to be similar and equivalent in terms of questions for every surveyed place (e.g., currency converter and species mentioned). Pilot interviews indicated that the technical understanding of ARs may not be straightforward for the general public. Therefore, prior to the development of the protocol, the description was pilot tested twice at two large public events, in which the participation of IUML (Sea and Littoral Research Institute) was supported by the European GRRIP project (https://grrip.eu/). On January 27, 2022, in Nantes, France, “The Researchers Night” attracted 70 attendees in a workshop on marine renewable energies. This event assessed the public's understanding of the AR concept and revealed concerns over ambiguity in the construction and design. Subsequently, on August 27, 2022, in Le Pouliguen, the “Go to See the Sea” event attracted several thousand participants. This event confirmed the clarity of the material explanation but raised interest in a concise illustration depicting the reef's placement within the wind farm. These events allowed us to finalize the technical presentation of the concepts used. Prior to data collection through interviews, we iteratively pilot-tested the interview protocol with adults in Maine for several weeks to check the wording of the questions, length, bias, and clarity. To conduct the interviews, we used intercept sampling in public places in each of the target locations. Interviews were recorded,
transcribed, and stored according to Colby College's protocol for human subjects research. Interviews were completed after reaching saturation (no further information was obtained with other interviews).

The interview protocol was designed to discuss targeted topics with the interviewees, starting from the broadest to the most specific (from a technical and/or scientific point of view). Thus, interviews began with a discussion of the volunteers' personal perception of the ocean. The interviewer provided a brief scenario providing background information on offshore wind turbine technology (i.e., why to put them in the sea, how they work); we asked about perceptions and attitudes and elicited underlying motivations to support or oppose this technology generally. Then we explained floating offshore wind technology and, in particular, the reasons for using this technology (water depth, wind speed, available space) and elicited perceptions of floating as different or similar to fixed-base turbines. Finally, the concept of ARs was introduced to interviewees with a brief explanation, along with some context and attributes of ARs, including: the material that would be used, the volume (around 350 cubic meters), the estimated costs (between $150,000 and $300,000), the number of ARs used per turbine [3], some examples of colonized ARs in the literature, and some species that live near and in these structures. We also showed models of the AR concept produced by our research team. In addition, we raised the subject of the regulation and governance of this type of project with the respondents. We asked them which entity they thought should manage the implementation of this type of project (AR installations) and why, to inquire about trust in scientists, industry, and government. If necessary, we explained how OWFs were managed and the decisions underlying their development.

## 3.5 | Data Analysis

Interviewees filled out consent forms that outlined the study background, the intended use of the information, and participant confidentiality, including a statement of concealing the participant's identity. In this publication, we refer to the interviewees by the numerical order of the interviews and their nationality. Appendix 1 profiles participants through descriptors. The interviews were recorded and transcribed using the “Otter.ai” AI software and manually cleaned and revised for accuracy.

All interview scripts were then imported into Dedoose (Dedoose 9.0.107). We used thematic analysis to interpret the data obtained from the interviews [59, 60] to ensure an in-depth, descriptive, and explanatory contextualization of participants' perceptions related to the selected topics. This methodology facilitated the identification of recurring themes and patterns in the interview responses [61, 62]. The scripts were processed through iterative two-stage coding [63]. This method makes it possible to identify recurring themes in respondents' answers, thus highlighting response patterns and priorities with the number of occurrences of the code.

In this study, we first used a deductive approach to analysis as initial codes were drawn from the research questions and protocol topics explored (e.g., ocean attachment, OWF position, etc). To ensure rigorous data analysis, each interview script was read

in detail and we used inductive coding to identify new themes that emerged from the data. In this way, a primary codebook could be created for each researcher based on all the data (interviews) read. Both of these primary codebooks were then discussed and combined during a meeting to elaborate only one codebook for the research team, which was then used to formally code the entire dataset. A similar sequential approach has been used in a previous study [64]. Multiple levels of codes were created with parent, child, and grandchild codes, respectively. Each code and level had a specific definition. The codebook was modified during script analysis through frequent code-tuning discussions. Thus, the information contained in the scripts was coded according to the codebook, which made it possible to trace the thought processes and themes of the many people sampled in the study.

# 4 | Results

## 4.1 | Attitudes Towards OWF: Fixed and Floating Turbines

Most coastal residents in both countries expressed broad support for the transition towards cleaner energy sources. Communities appreciated offshore wind turbines mainly by recognizing the benefits for the environment and their quality of life (renewable energy). Perceptions of benefits and drawbacks of offshore wind generally were consistent across space: interviewees in the United States and France had very similar perspectives and articulated specific attributes in similar ways. Respondents in both countries also shared the same main concerns about OWFs: impacts on marine biodiversity, aesthetics, and fishermen. Despite these similarities, there were a few divergences in their opinions.

By far, the greatest concern expressed by French and US locations' community members was the impact on marine fauna (Figure 2). Participants were particularly concerned about seabirds that could collide with turbine blades, marine species using echolocation sensitive to vibrations emitted by the platform, the pile, or the flow of electricity through the system.

Respondents brought up the concern of degradation of landscape aesthetics. We found that the context of the relationship with the ocean is relevant to their perception of impact. A significant number of individuals valued their frequent visits to the sampled coastlines to enjoy its tranquility and scenic beauty. People who were reluctant to support wind farm developments along the coastline often cited concerns about altering the beloved aesthetics of the area and potentially compromising local tranquility. In general, people expressed considerable hesitation about OWF construction in close proximity to their homes. However, people displayed a significant level of interest and concern regarding the potential for renewable energy development. In contrast to studies focusing on specific stakeholder concerns where energy literacy is high, many participants indicated that they lacked information about OWFs. This was true in both the United States and France, and our questions elicited responses such as “I mean, I don’t think that I’m outwardly opposed to it, and I guess I just don’t know enough about it ...” (USA, 18). Overall, many people discussed the scientific unknowns of
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 2** | List of pros and cons cited by the interviewees about OWFs and FOWF development (normalized occurrences). Many people heard about FOWFs for the first time and faced difficulties in seeing differences with OWFs or added arguments to those given for OWFs.</figcaption></figure>

OWF impacts on the ocean, noting “that there might be reper-
cussions that we just don’t have the concepts to understand right
now” (USA, 16).

Common sentiments in the United States indicated a preference for OWF development over onshore development. The US perspective was more partial to preserving terrestrial areas for agricultural activities. Conversely, residents in France expressed concerns around spatial inefficiencies, noting the substantial landfootprint of OWFs and their perceived lower energy yield compared to alternative technologies, such as nuclear power, which holds distinct significance in the French context.

I do not know how many offshore wind turbines it
would take to remove a nuclear reactor. So if you tell
me that you need 50,000, that's a lot of offshore wind
turbines, whereas the technology [nuclear] that we
have been using for decades has been proven for a
very long time.

(FR, 28)

Some respondents expressed a direct preference for alternative
renewable energy technologies, stating that OWFs were not ef-
ficient enough given the area they occupy. On the other hand,
US residents demonstrated significant resistance towards the
development of OWFs due to their potential impact on spatially
conflicting maritime economic activities. Individuals affiliated

with the fishing industry voiced apprehension regarding the im-
pact of OWFs on fishermen and fishing activities. Additionally,
some participants raised concerns about potential conflicts with
established shipping lanes.

For most respondents in both the United States and France, FOWF was unknown before the questionnaire. We used several images to illustrate our points and give people a visual to help them understand this technology. While similar issues were raised regarding fixed and floating wind turbines (Figure 2), respondents were generally less concerned about the environmental implications of FOWFs. Respondents in both the United States and France generally perceived fewer challenges associated with FOWFs when compared to fixed OWFs. A positively perceived aspect of FOWFs is the less intrusive nature of the technology, contrasting with the impact of driving piles into the ground. When asked to elaborate on perceived positive aspects of FOWFs, respondents in both countries often identified a reduced impact on biodiversity, space optimization, and lesser visual intrusion for coastal residents. However, fewer ‘renewable’ pros were cited for FOWFs, which may be attributed to the respondents’ initial lack of knowledge about this technology. Consequently, they may have overlooked this aspect, considering it is a variation of the existing OWF technology.

A small proportion of respondents, both from the United States and France, still had a negative view of FOWFs. Their reservations were based on concerns about potential impacts on marine
biodiversity, compromised coastal views, and perceived challenges associated with maintenance costs in both human and financial terms. Perceived benefits of FOWFs were related to their distance from shore, aesthetic impact mitigation, power generation enhancement, and facilitating maintenance by allowing increased platform movement through disengagement from anchors: “there is probably less damage to the seabed and there may be a way to move them from time to time” (FR, 35). Although some participants mentioned that a floating system would be more resistant to storms and waves given the cushioning effect of the slack mooring lines, others expressed concern around mooring failure and the possibility of wind turbines becoming dislodged due to the swell of the open sea. Finally, respondents also introduced the possibility of the reef effect as a mitigating factor for environmental damage, noting that a benefit of floating systems would be the colonization of marine life on mooring lines: “I think sea life will definitely attach itself to the mooring lines ... [like] in some of the floating platforms of oil exploration today - I think they might do something similar” (USA, 6). Note that we did not discuss with interviewees that biocolonization on mooring lines is typically not preferable to system reliability and is periodically removed to maximize performance of the structure.

Surprisingly, several arguments were both found in benefits and drawbacks to FOWFs, such as the aesthetics impact, the maintenance impact, or even the biodiversity impact. Specifically, concerns about biodiversity were related to the destruction of the seabed by mooring lines scraping it. Concerns about maintenance were particularly prevalent in France, where most people feared the costs of such structures in terms of human resources or financial costs. Finally, aesthetic concerns could reveal misperceptions of those FOWF risks.

## 4.2 | Community Attitudes Towards Artificial Reefs in Floating OWFs

Artificial reef (AR) attitudinal questions aimed to gauge and understand people's opinions on the industrial application of this concept. We also aimed to gather baseline information on how people perceive some of the decision criteria such as materials, costs, and the biodiversity of the reefs. Both locally and internationally, respondents viewed reef-building as a positive effect of a wind farm and were largely supportive of the enhanced OWF and perceived significant ecological and environmental benefits of using ARs. However, some individuals expressed reservations, particularly regarding the location of the reefs, maintenance requirements, potential socio-economic impacts (fishers), and considerations related to the reef parameters.

The various attributes (i.e., costs, materials, size, and volume) of the presented AR technology were favorably perceived by the coastal public (Figure 3). Overall, the pattern of perceptions of this concept was similar between the two countries. The choice of materials (recycled steel) was particularly important to respondents who were aligned with the principles of environmental responsibility, switching to renewable energies that would be more environmentally friendly. Such supporters further reinforced the idea of pursuing the development of this concept. Additionally, several respondents clearly preferred steel over other materials such as concrete or plastic derivatives. While most people had positive attitudes, some expressed mixed or negative views. Some concerns focused on steel/metal quality due to worries about corrosion resistance and structural integrity. The artificial structure's implementation also raised doubts for some: "My one concern is if it is made out of recycled steel,

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 3** | Benefits and drawbacks of FOWFs enhanced with ARs. Percentages are weighted according to the occurrence of the argument and the country of origin.</figcaption></figure>
what grades would it be? Considering different kinds of steel have different resistances to the degradation of water" (USA, 1). As steel corrodes in seawater and could induce a leakage of pollutants in the sea, while reacting positively to the AR concept, people expressed their concerns about corrosion, afraid of it being too destructive for the structures while altering the structural integrity and increasing significant maintenance costs: "That's a tricky one because we don't know what the long term side effects would be from that ..., would it add extra minerals to the water, things like that?" (USA, 17).

Respondents were divided on the cost of these structures. While some people regarded the cost as highly negligible compared to the price of a single wind turbine (estimated at 1 to 2% in the questionnaire) or the cost of the entire farm: "When you see what they pay for a wind turbine, they can put in a [bird] nesting box at 150 k€." (FR, 34), others had divergent views, especially when they requested to know what an estimated price for a wind farm might be. When costs were discussed in absolute terms, people were less supportive of OWFs, and more skeptical towards additional costs of ARs, sometimes noting that there were cheaper ways to support wildlife. With regard to the costs associated with these structures, only a few individuals expressed strong negative attitudes. Opposition stemmed from potentially becoming the party responsible for bearing these costs, and resistance to the idea of being overcharged for this innovation in the midst of rising global energy prices—which were skyrocketing worldwide during the data collection period in 2022. Concerns about potential excessive costs were also identified, rather than a negative opinion about the cost of the structure itself. As one respondent elaborated, this is a way to add cost on top of already expensive projects:

> Too costly in my book. I mean, just the wind turbines in the state of Maine - they are putting up all kinds of wind turbines, they are using federal money and it's costing the government a lot of money. And they have proved to be inefficient.

(USA, 3)

All respondents with negative attitudes towards ARs were also opponents of offshore wind in general. Respondents were consistently concerned about the trade-offs between cost, materials used, and associated environmental impacts. In other words, this can be summarized by the question: Is the use of a significant amount of materials or expense justified by the ecological benefits it will generate?

Within the framework of a responsible ecological approach, the development of FOWFs and ARs should be conducted in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts while maximizing benefits. Several respondents self-identified concerns about the potential impact on the seabed, such as sediment resuspension or soil destruction. Most interviewees responded positively to the ecological benefits of the structures, which they felt outweighed any potential negative impacts, such as temporary disturbance of sediment during installation. One person specifically emphasized that this approach could help offset the impact of FOWF on the seabed: "the positive side is that it will minimize the impact of the wind turbines, especially on the biodiversity on the ground." (FR, 35). And as we have seen for other arguments,

some reluctant people suggested that these structures are more disruptive than beneficial:

> We rely heavily on the money we get in from fishing, from lobstering, from people going out on boat tours, and going whale watching. How much is that going to serve the area? And are there better ways to do it? Or does it have to be all executed at once disturbing a large quantity of sea life?

(USA, 1)

Several respondents also questioned the longevity and future of the ARs. This resulted in questions and concerns about the maintenance and monitoring of the structures. This also corresponds to worries about additional costs, as many individuals who shared this opinion were concerned about the frequency and cost of maintenance required to ensure that the ARs remain in good condition: "and if it costs thousands of euros in maintenance ..." (FR, 29b). One respondent also expressed concern about regularly disrupting the ecosystem that is being established on the structures such as mooring lines, or has already been established, preferring to allow natural processes to unfold without significant human intervention: "are we going to have to regularly disturb these new communities that are created there to repair the mooring lines?" (USA, 1). Respondents also recognized the long time horizon of ecological benefits, noting that "over time probably you'd see the benefit, not immediately" (USA, 18).

## 4.3 | Artificial Reefs and Floating Wind: A Path to Greater Public Support?

More than half of the respondents were in favor of implementing infrastructure to develop ARs as an additional component of FOWFs. In general, people appreciated this innovation for reducing the environmental impact of floating wind turbines. Some people noted the opportunity that ARs could provide for marine life, but also for seafarers: "Some fishermen would be happy if you can fish out here" (USA, 4). However, we did not find that respondents changed their opinion about OWFs, or FOWFs in particular. In fact, none of the offshore wind opponents changed their minds with the enhanced reef proposal. On the contrary, we found that the effect of this proposal was opinion amplification. In other words, people who were originally opposed to OWFs development were even more opposed when asked the final question of the interview.

While a small proportion of people was firmly opposed to the AR coupled to FOWFs, a relatively large proportion of people were unsure or would not take a position, mainly due to a lack of information or understanding. One person summed up the unknowns of the infrastructure: "I'd like to be convinced that it's a great idea. But again, like I said, there are a few parts of it where I can just - it's funny, I can hear the sounds of other people's voices in my head going 'but what about this, but what about this?'" (USA, 19). The vast majority were unfamiliar with this technology and were making trade-offs on the fly based on the limited information given to them. It was clear that empirical evidence of biodiversity gains was among the most important issues to the vast majority of respondents.
## 4.4 | Institutional Trust

We elicited attitudes towards institutional trust for leading future research and development of FOWFs with ARs, and found diverging views towards the preferable entity to lead these projects. Scientific distrust was seen more in the United States than in France (Figure 3). In both the United States and France, a large proportion of respondents preferred academic institutions to lead research and development. Respondents trusted academic institutions to tackle the subject with greater impartiality and objectivity, with fewer biases than government or private entities, given the emphasis on neutral, peer-reviewed research: “A public organization where there would be no conflict of interest; I think it has to be people who have public funding or researchers” (FR, 31). Furthermore, universities and research institutions often foster a deeper, holistic understanding and lay the foundation for innovative solutions while avoiding bias towards profits or market competition, as mentioned by an interviewee: “Not commercial developers. So I would say, my preference would be—honestly— if I was being really really honest, I would say research university affiliated scientists, but with government funding” (USA, 16b).

Many people pointed out the negative aspects of a private entity in this type of project management, describing profits as the companies' main motivation. The potential for prioritizing profits to the detriment of environmental stewardship made industry-led AR development an unfavorable option. On the other hand, some participants saw the value of industry-led R&D. It was argued that corporations prioritize efficiency and results, allowing for faster research implementation and technology development. According to this view, large corporations have the financial resources for substantial research and development investment, reducing the burden on taxpayers. Furthermore, corporate-led research aligns with market demands, ensuring commercial viability and could facilitate the swift development of ARs for future FOWF projects.

At the same time, respondents from both nations discussed the benefits of government involvement in new R&D. This suggests a collaborative approach with local stakeholders, scientists, engineers, and seafarers in commissions. Notably, one person suggested military involvement, such as the Navy or Marines, in leading FOWF development. Given the government's authority in shaping regulations, direct involvement in research, while working closely with other professional and specialist bodies, could lead to well-informed policies that support OWF development. Although the roles and responsibilities of government entities vary among the cases, most respondents communicated the importance of local actors among the larger decision-making context and recognized the value of coordination among the various interest groups to realize the implementation of new technologies. One respondent in France described the role of various institutions:

> The government, with other actors, will choose a priority zone to implement renewable energy. It should be a kind of committee, a little more general which gathers for example the economic actors. I think that the mayor, necessarily, should take part because he knows his community well.

(FR, 35)

Although there was no clear consensus about R&D leadership, we did find that respondents had greater trust in impartial researchers with government support to be a preferable pathway to technology development. At a time when trust in science has been declining and renewable energy development is increasingly political, these findings demonstrate support for solutions to be implemented for greater social benefit.

## 5 | Discussion

Our study is set in a global context of marine renewable energy project development, and more specifically of OWFs and FOWFs enhanced with ARs. We present an analysis of semi-structured interviews on the opinions and perceptions of local communities in coastal towns in the State of Maine in the United States and the Pays-de-la-Loire region in France. This country-country comparative study was one of the first studies that we are aware of conducted to gain insight into coastal communities' opinions regarding a FOWF ecological compensation and remediation solution. The main objectives were to analyze the perceptions of OWF and FOWF and to evaluate opinions about the application of ARs specifically designed for FOWF's anchoring systems.

Both French and US participants have highly similar perspectives and opinions about offshore wind energy, suggesting that concerns and benefits are, to some extent, generalizable. We also find that people exhibit a tendency to reinforce their existing attitudes towards offshore wind with more information. We show that coastal communities in both countries are interested in renewable energy developments, although many people have concerns about negative impacts on marine biodiversity or visual impacts. Our results align with other studies that show the importance of marine biodiversity to local communities [65], since impacts on biodiversity, either “aerial” biodiversity (e.g., seagulls and marine birds) or underwater biodiversity (e.g., marine mammals or fishes), were of significantly greater concern than impacts on economic drivers such as commercial fishing or tourism. In the United States, which is still highly dependent on fossil fuels for energy, respondents mainly discussed the benefits of OWFs as a clean and environmentally friendly energy solution. This was not as frequently discussed in France, likely because of the difference in the energy portfolio in France, which is majority clean energy including nuclear [66]. In France, benefits were more likely to be listed as preserving space on land by using the ocean for energy development, maximizing available land for other development such as housing or cultivation. Nevertheless, French respondents seemed to be more familiar with maintenance costs (human and financial) needed by OWF as it was a redundant concern.

After being introduced to the concept of ARs, people were overwhelmingly positive about the concept, emphasizing the perceived environmental benefits as a win-win scenario. However, some respondents expressed reservations regarding the long-term impacts, effectiveness, and other potential consequences of ARs. Also, one of the most important interviewee concerns about ARs was the cost of their development and installation. The reluctance of the people interviewed in this study to add ARs to FOWFs was linked to increases in energy prices. In our protocol, the price of one AR was estimated by our research team
to be around 1%–2% of the total turbine cost. Most people agreed on the small magnitude of the increased cost but then expressed concern when this was discussed in absolute terms. This is perhaps unsurprising for a few reasons. First, this study was conducted in 2022 when the Russia–Ukraine War had driven energy prices extremely high throughout Europe and the United States due to natural gas shortages. This resulted in widespread anxiety about home heating costs and utility bills for winter amid record heat waves and threats of blackouts in the summer [67]. Second, many people are not familiar with the capital costs of large energy infrastructure projects, and respondents were alarmed at the costs of building structures at multi-million and multi-billion costs. Faced with higher bills, it is unambiguous that some people are concerned about being overcharged for energy. This finding confirms that of previous authors [65, 68, 69] who found that people wanted clean but cheap energy and preferably with low environmental impact. Recently, a study [70] found that people expressed a stronger willingness-to-pay for OWF that offered reduced visibility from shore and lower impacts on biodiversity. The authors also showed the importance of maintaining a marine economy around the OWF, as people strongly preferred local seafood and local commercial fishing. However, the biodiversity attribute was more focused on the induced increase in biodiversity in another study [71] where authors quantified the willingness-to-pay with attributes on enhanced biodiversity and turbine visibility, both of which were important concerns of communities about OWF. Without departing from previous studies, the latter also showed the importance of biodiversity and price of electricity in local coastal communities in an OWF development. Finally, compensation has already been seen as an important determinant for social perceptions of such projects [72].

Our study revealed strong attachments to the ocean among respondents in all sampled transatlantic communities, which aligns with other research about connection to the sea [6]. Early studies on onshore and offshore wind energy identified a myriad of reasons that lead to support for or opposition to local energy projects and renewable energy in general. It is well recognized that complex factors, including the personal life history of people and communities, explain the opposition perceived in some places [73–75]. In fact, people perceive this space as highly essential not only for the resources it offers but also for the emotional attachment they have with it or simply for the aesthetic attachment [76]. In our case, the sampled sites had a long history of fishing, and this was reflected in the concerns of respondents. In the case of particularly important fishing activities that have lasted for several hundred years even today (lobstering in Maine and sardine fishing in Pays-de-la-Loire), another similarity between both countries emerged. The current political climates of these regions have recently undergone significant changes for the communities, which influence future decisions for energy development. For example, new regulations on the lobster fishing industry were highly contested and perceived as a significant threat to the future of the industry [77]. Such policies are seemingly unrelated but, in effect, are additive to the pressures in coastal communities and are important to contextualize in the decision-making process for future industries. Policies that are specific to each region or location sampled need to be taken into account for further studies. Indeed, some of the respondents expressed concerns about fishing regulations to protect North Atlantic Right Whales in the region and were afraid to add additional constraints to

these newly introduced regulations for fishermen. Such concern about fishermen and the fishing industry has emerged as a key issue in the development process of OWFs in both France and the United States, where fishermen are advocating for their right to continue their trade within the boundaries of these wind farms. Regulators and developers should also account for public attitudes towards biodiversity when developing decommissioning plans because structure removal could remove the biodiversity and habitat gains that are preferred in local communities.

All of these studies show the importance of biodiversity for the social acceptability of local communities near planned wind farms, but also the cosmopolitan nature of the concerns we have identified in our study. With concerns and fears linked to marine biodiversity and coastal deterioration, our results demonstrate that while there may be localized concerns about a particular project or development, communities close to the sea present similar concerns about environmental degradation due to wind farm development. This consistency may indicate an overall feeling on the issue or parallel sources of information or cultural perspectives on renewable energy between the two nations. This suggests that project details such as the engineered design of a substructure may engender similar responses across regions as they are highly pragmatic, and findings here show some level of generalizability. However, due to nuances depending on the history, culture, or political realities of the region, site-specific attributes are less generalizable, and local studies are needed in regions of development interest.

One of our research questions was to learn about whether attitudes towards FOWF were unique from fixed-base wind energy and to understand whether implementing ARs to the anchors of FOWFs was perceived as a benefit to mitigate the impacts on marine biodiversity from wind energy. We found that participants respond positively to FOWF in general because of the potential to minimize some of the primary concerns regarding biodiversity impacts or aesthetic concerns. However, AR enhanced floating wind farms are not a panacea to opposition towards offshore wind. In fact, the more respondents learned about wind energy and ARs, we found attitudes hardened and intensified. That is, no opponents became more supportive of offshore wind just because of the environmental solutions presented in the interviews; instead, the facts presented provided data points to support their position. The same was true among supporters; given the same information, supporters found the AR concept to be not only agreeable but preferable, with caveats, and many vertically intensified their support during the interview.

In parallel, an unexpected phenomenon observed in the study was scientist distrust, especially in the United States. Indeed, it has been shown previously by several authors [78, 79] that people are likely to show distrustful reactions towards scientists depending on how the facts are communicated. This is particularly the case in a context where a strong political stake is present, such as here with the development of OWFs. Because the concept of pairing ARs with floating wind turbines is still a hypothetical concept, we had little evidence to support the information presented. This led to some skepticism about the concept since, at the time of the interview, the concept was untested. While the reef effect is a well-known phenomenon on fixed-based turbines and other marine infrastructure, the same is not true with
floaters, where species aggregation on the turbines and mooring lines is generally removed for operational efficiency.

Lack of empirical information in our script about ARs and subject complexity could have led to perceived distrust and to the relatively high proportion of uncertain positions of people about their application to FOWFs. Finally, as stated in the results, for most people the concepts of FOWFs and ARs were newly introduced, and few people had previously heard about them. Hypothetical studies can yield imprecise responses as compared to when one of these structures is built; further, there could be a misperception of risks.

6 | Conclusion

This study adds to the body of literature regarding social acceptance of offshore wind, with a unique contribution focused on the unique attributes of floating turbines. We find that attitudes specific to floating wind are mostly centered around changes in environmental risk and the opportunities for sitting away from shore, but also conflict with seafarers. Our contribution also offers pilot data about an enhancement of floating wind farms by implementing steel-based ARs at the anchors. While we find that most people support this concept, concerns about cost and materials were of high interest to respondents. Future research could quantify the relative attributes of floating wind energy with ARs to explicitly quantify the trade-offs that people are making when considering new infrastructure. An overall trend found in both countries was the lack of knowledge among respondents about the topics under discussion (OWF, FOWF, and AR). This points to a real need for greater dissemination of information of these industrial fields to the general public. Understanding how turbines work, their environmental significance, and the solutions to their impacts could have an effect on the acceptability and social perception of these projects. We acknowledge several study limitations that limit analysis and interpretation. First, field work was complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore limited to outdoor locations and with a population that had resumed some level of social activity. This is likely a bias in our dataset because of varying levels of risk tolerance among the general population. Second, due to the hypothetical nature of the study—AR enhancement in particular—we acknowledge that stated attitudes are initial perspectives, which evolve over time. Future research should assess attitudes in longitudinal studies that track attitudes over time. Finally, we acknowledge that our assumption is that offshore wind will continue to be developed throughout the Atlantic (and in other parts of the world), and our position is that it should be done in a socially responsible way to minimize environmental and social risk. However, this study does not consider whether a more environmentally and socially responsible solution might not include offshore wind energy as a part of the global energy portfolio.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Manny Gimond for generating the study location map and to Professor Justine Dumay for helping with data collection in France. This work is part of the US-French collaborative project *Improving the Environmental Integration of Floating Offshore Wind Turbines (I2FLOW)* within the Sea and Littoral Research Institute (FR CNRS IUML), Nantes Université, Nantes, France, in partnership with

the Ocean Resources and Renewable Energy (ORE) Lab, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA, and the Department of Environmental Studies at Colby College, Waterville, Maine, USA. It was funded by Region de la Loire under the WEAMEC community and the European Community under the FEDER program and the Buck Lab for Climate and Environment at Colby College. Authors would like to thank three reviewers for their helpful and relevant comments on this study.

Ethics Statement

This study was approved by the Colby College Institutional Review Board for the Protection for Human Subjects.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available in aggregate and summary form by contacting the corresponding authors. Raw data cannot be released per ethics approval for the protection of human subjects.

Peer Review

The peer review history for this article is available at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1002/we.70021.

References

1. F. Martins, C. Felgueiras, and M. Smitkova, “Fossil Fuel Energy Consumption in European Countries,” 5th International Conference on Energy and Environment Research, ICEER, 2018.

2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), *Global Warming of 1.5°C: IPCC Special Report on Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels in Context of Strengthening Response to Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty* (Cambridge University Press, 2022), https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.

3. C. Horowitz, “Paris Agreement,” *International Legal Materials* 55, no. 4 (2016): 740–755, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020782900004253.

4. F. Urban and J. Nordensvard, “Low Carbon Energy Transitions in the Nordic Countries: Evidence From the Environmental Kuznets Curve,” *Energies* 11 (2018): 2209, https://doi.org/10.3390/en11092209.

5. European Parliamentary Research Service, “Offshore Wind Energy in Europe,” 2020, PE 659.313.

6. M. Frovola, B. Pérez-Pérez, and D. Herrero-Luque, “Diverse Responses of Coastal Communities to Offshore Wind Farming Development in Southern Spain,” *Moravian Geographical Reports* 30, no. 4 (2022): 324–339, https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2022-0021.

7. J. M. Barragán and M. de Andrés, “Analysis and Trends of the World’s Coastal Cities and Agglomerations,” *Ocean and Coastal Management* 114 (2015): 11–20.

8. J. T. M. Machado and M. de Andrés, “Implications of Offshore Wind Energy Developments in Coastal and Maritime Tourism and Recreation Areas: An Analytical Overview,” *Environmental Impact Assessment Review* 99 (2023): 106999, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106999.

9. R. Wüstenhagen, M. Wolsink, and M. J. Bürer, “Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Innovation: An Introduction to the Concept,” *Energy Policy* 35, no. 5 (2007): 2683–2691.

10. Å. Waldo, “Offshore Wind Power in Sweden—A Qualitative Analysis of Attitudes With Particular Focus on Opponents,” *Energy Policy* 41 (2012): 692–702, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.033.
11. J. Ladenburg, "Attitudes Towards Offshore Wind Farms—The Role of Beach Visits on Attitude and Demographic and Attitude Relations," *Energy Policy* 38, no. 3 (2010): 1297–1304.

12. C. Haggett, "Understanding Public Responses to Offshore Wind Power," *Energy Policy* 39 (2011): 503–510, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.10.014.

13. D. Bidwell, "Tourists Are People Too: Nonresidents' Values, Beliefs, and Acceptance of a Nearshore Wind Farm," *Energy Policy* 173 (2023): 113365, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.113365.

14. S. Degraer, R. Brabant, B. Rumes, and L. Vigin, *Environmental Impacts of Offshore Wind Farms in the Belgian Part of the North Sea: Marking a Decade of Monitoring, Research and Innovation* (Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, OD Natural Environment, Marine Ecology and Management, 2019), 134.

15. T. Gray, C. Haggett, and D. Bell, "Offshore Wind Farms and Commercial Fisheries in the UK: A Study in Stakeholder Consultation," *Ethics, Place & Environment* 8, no. 2 (2005): 127–140.

16. Le Monde, "Près de 600 personnes manifestent à Caen et à Dunkerque contre « les éoliennes qui détruisent la mer »," published June 19, 2021, accessed June 18, 2024, https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/artic/le/2021/06/19/non-aux-eoliennes-qui-detruisent-la-mer-pres-de-600-personnes-manifestent-a-caen-et-a-dunkerque_6084823_3244.html.

17. Harvard Political Review, "Lobstermen Protest Offshore Wind in the Gulf of Maine," published June 5, 2021, accessed June 18, 2024, https://harvardpolitics.com/lobstermen-protest-offshore-wind/.

18. C. Haggett, T. ten Brink, A. Russell, et al., "Offshore Wind Projects and Fisheries: Conflict and Engagement in the United Kingdom and the United States," *Oceanography* 33, no. 4 (2020): 38–47.

19. J. Firestone, W. Kempton, M. B. Lilley, and K. Samoteskul, "Public Acceptance of Offshore Wind Power: Does Perceived Fairness of Process Matter?," *Journal of Environmental Planning and Management* 55, no. 10 (2012): 1387–1402, https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.688658.

20. C. R. Warren, C. Lumsden, S. O'Dowd, and R. V. Birnie, "Green on Green: Public Perceptions of Wind Power in Scotland and Ireland," *Journal of Environmental Planning and Management* 48, no. 6 (2005): 853–875.

21. I. Galparsoro, I. Menchaca, J. M. Garmendia, et al., "Reviewing the Ecological Impacts of Offshore Wind Farms," *Ocean Sustainability* 1 (2022): 1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-022-00003-5.

22. R. Whitcomb and W. Williams, *Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Energy, Class, Politics and the Battle for Our Energy Future* (Public Affairs, 2007).

23. M. Lange, B. Burkhard, S. Garthe, et al., "Analyzing Coastal and Marine Changes: Offshore Wind Farming as a Case Study—zukunft Küste—Coastal Futures (Synthesis Report)," *LOICZ (Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone) Research and Studies No. 38*. GKSS Research Center, Geesthacht, Germany, 2010.

24. Global Wind Energy Council, "Global Wind Report," 2022, accessed June 18, 2024, https://gwec.net/global-wind-report-2022/.

25. U. K. Verfuss, C. E. Sparling, C. Arnot, A. Judd, and M. Coyle, "Review of Offshore Wind Farm Impact Monitoring and Mitigation With Regard to Marine Mammals," in *The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology*, vol. 875, eds. A. Popper and A. Hawkins (Springer, 2016), 1175–1182, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2981-8_147.

26. Y. Jézéquel, S. Cones, F. H. Jensen, H. Brewer, J. Collins, and T. A. Mooney, "Pile Driving Repeatedly Impacts the Giant Scallop (*Placopecten magellanicus*)," *Scientific Reports* 12 (2022): 15380, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19838-6.

27. L. Leiva, S. Scholz, L. Giménez, et al., "Noisy Waters Can Influence Young-of-Year lobsters' Substrate Choice and Their Antipredatory Responses," *Environmental Pollution* 291 (2021): 118108, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118108.

28. Z. L. Hutchison, A. B. Gill, P. Sigray, H. He, and J. W. King, "Anthropogenic Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Influence the Behaviour of Bottom-Dwelling Marine Species," *Scientific Reports* 10 (2020): 4219, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60793-x.

29. J. T. Reubens, F. Pasotti, S. Degraer, and M. Vincx, "Residency, Site Fidelity and Habitat Use of Atlantic Cod (*Gadus morhua*) at an Offshore Wind Farm Using Acoustic Telemetry," *Marine Environmental Research* 90 (2013): 128–135.

30. J. K. Petersen and T. Malm, "Offshore Windmill Farms: Threats to or Possibilities for the Marine Environment," *AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment* 35 (2006): 75–80.

31. D. Wilhelmsson, T. Malm, and M. C. Ohman, "The Influence of Offshore Wind-Power on Demersal Fish," *Ices Journal of Marine Science* 63 (2006): 775–784.

32. European Parliamentary Research Service, "EU Strategy for Offshore Renewable Energy," 2022, PE 698.909.

33. A. Bates and J. Firestone, "A Comparative Assessment of Proposed Offshore Wind Power Demonstration Projects in the United States," *Energy Research and Social Science* 10 (2015): 192–205, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.07.007.

34. T. Salic, J. F. Charpentier, M. Benbouzid, and M. Le Boulluec, "Control Strategies for Floating Offshore Wind Turbine: Challenges and Trends," *Electronics* 8 (2019): 8, https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics8101185.

35. Z. Jiang, "Installation of Offshore Wind Turbines: A Technical Review," *Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews* 139 (2021): 110576, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110576.

36. R. Karlsson, M. Tivefälth, I. Duranovic, S. Martinsson, A. Kjolhamar, and K. M. Murvoll, "Artificial Hard-Substrate Colonisation in the Offshore Hywind Scotland Pilot Park," *Wind Energy Science* 7 (2022): 801–814, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-801-2022.

37. G. B. Picken, "Review of Marine Fouling Organisms in the North Sea on Offshore Structures," Discussion Forum and Exhibition on Offshore Engineering With Elastomers, Plastics and Rubber Inst. 5 (1985): 5.1–5.10.

38. M. L. Boukinda-Mbadinga, F. Schoefs, V. Quiniou-Ramus, M. Birades, and R. Garretta, "Marine Growth Colonization Process in Guinea Gulf: Data Analysis," *ASME Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering* 129, no. 2 (2006): 97–106, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2355518.

39. F. Kerckhof, B. Rumes, T. Jacques, S. Degraer, and A. Norro, "Early Development of the Subtidal Marine Biofouling on a Concrete Offshore Windmill Foundation on the Thornton Bank (Southern North Sea): First Monitoring Results," *Underwater Technology* 29 (2010): 137–149, https://doi.org/10.3723/ut.29.137.

40. M. Maduka, F. Schoefs, K. Thiagarajan, and A. Bates, "Hydrodynamic Effects of Biofouling-Induced Surface Roughness—Review and Research Gaps for Shallow Offshore Wind Energy Structures," *Ocean Engineering* 272 (2023): 113798, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.113798.

41. S. A. Bortone and W. Seaman, "Technology for the Creation of Aquatic Habitats and Their Evaluation in Fisheries Ecosystems," *Fisheries Science* 68 (2002): 1677–1682.

42. D. Bowman, S. Garnett, S. Barlow, et al., "Renewal Ecology: Conservation for the Anthropocene," *Restoration Ecology* 25 (2017): 674–680.

43. L. B. Firth, R. C. Thompson, K. Bohn, et al., "Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Environmental and Engineering Considerations When Designing Coastal Defence Structures," *Coastal Engineering* 87 (2014): 122–135.

44. R. L. Morris, A. G. Porter, W. F. Figueira, R. A. Coleman, E. K. Fobert, and R. Ferrari, "Fish-Smart Seawalls: A Decision Tool for Adaptive Management of Marine Infrastructure," *Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment* 16, no. 5 (2018): 278–287, https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1809.
45. M. Glarou, M. Zrust, and J. C. Svendsen, "Using Artificial-Reef Knowledge to Enhance the Ecological Function of Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations: Implications for Fish Abundance and Diversity," *Journal of Marine Science and Engineering* 8, no. 5 (2020): 332, https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8050332.

46. C. P. Wong, B. Jiang, A. P. Kinzig, and Z. Ouyang, "Quantifying Multiple Ecosystem Services for Adaptive Management of Green Infrastructure," *Ecosphere* 9, no. 11 (2018): e02495, https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2495.

47. W. Lengkeek, K. Didderen, M. Teunis, et al., "Eco-Friendly Design of Scour Protection: Potential Enhancement of Ecological Functioning in Offshore Wind Farms," Ministry of Economic Affairs, Department of Nature & Biodiversity, 2017, accessed June 18, 2024, https://edepot.wur.nl/411374.

48. S. M. Maxwell, F. Kershaw, C. C. Locke, et al., "Potential Impacts of Floating Wind Turbine Technology for Marine Species and Habitats," *Journal of Environmental Management* 307 (2022): 114577, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114577.

49. B. K. Sovacool and B. Brossmann, "Fantastic Futures and Three American Energy Transitions," *Science as Culture* 22, no. 2 (2013): 204–212, https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2013.786999.

50. E. McKinley, T. Acott, and T. Stojanovic, "Socio-Cultural Dimensions of Marine Spatial Planning," in *Maritime Spatial Planning*, eds. J. Zaucha and K. Gee (Springer International Publishing, 2019), 151–174.

51. M. Lange and V. Cummins, "Managing Stakeholder Perception and Engagement for Marine Energy Transitions in a Decarbonizing World," *Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews* 152 (2021): 111740, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111740.

52. US Department of Energy, DOE, "Advancing Offshore Wind Energy in the United States," US Department of Energy Strategic Contributions Toward 30 Gigawatts and Beyond, accessed June 18, 2024, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/advancing-offshore-wind-energy-full-report.pdf.

53. Ifremer, Système d'Informations Halieutiques, "Activité des navires de pêche (2017): région Pays de la Loire," accessed June 18, 2024, https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00490/60172/.

54. Ifremer, Système d'Informations Halieutiques, "Région Pays de la Loire, Activité des navires de pêche (2018)," accessed June 18, 2024, https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00608/72058/.

55. Ifremer, Système d'Informations Halieutiques, "Région Pays de la Loire, Activité des navires de pêche (2019)," accessed June 18, 2024, https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00650/76235/.

56. Ifremer, Système d'Informations Halieutiques, "Région Pays de la Loire, Activité des navires de pêche (2020)," accessed June 18, 2024, https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00746/85753/.

57. Ifremer, Système d'Informations Halieutiques, "Région Pays de la Loire, Activité des navires de pêche (2021)," accessed June 18, 2024, https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00802/91425/.

58. Insee, "RP1967 à 1999 dénombrements, RP2009 au RP2020 exploitations principales."

59. A. Bryman and E. Bell, *Business Research Methods* (Oxford University Press, 2011).

60. J. Birkinshaw, M. Y. Brannen, and R. L. Tung, "From a Distance and Generalizable to up Close and Grounded: Reclaiming a Place for Qualitative Methods in International Business Research," *Journal of International Business Studies* 42, no. 5 (2011): 573–581.

61. V. Braun and V. Clarke, "Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology," *Qualitative Research in Psychology* 3, no. 2 (2006): 77–101.

62. M. Javadi and K. Zarea, "Understanding Thematic Analysis and Its Pitfall," *Journal of Client-Centered Nursing Care* 1, no. 1 (2016): 34–40, https://doi.org/10.15412/J.JCC.02010107.

63. J. Saldaña, *The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers*, 4th ed. (SAGE Publications Ltd, 2021).

64. T. Azungah, "Qualitative Research: Deductive and Inductive Approaches to Data Analysis," *Qualitative Research Journal* 18, no. 4 (2018): 383–400, https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-D-18-00035.

65. S. C. Klain, "Wind of Change: Offshore Wind Farms, Contested Values and Ecosystem Services" (PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, 2016).

66. RTE, "Bilan électrique 2023," published on 2024, accessed June 18, 2024, https://assets.rte-france.com/analyse-et-donnees/2024-03/Bilan%20électrique%202023%20rapport%20complet_29fev24.pdf.

67. S. Horsley, "Soaring Electricity Bills Are the Latest Inflation Flashpoint," *NPR, Morning Edition*, published September 13, 2022, accessed June 18, 2024, https://www.npr.org/2022/09/13/1122371879/electricity y-utilities-gasoline-gas-prices-inflation-august-cpi-consumer-prices.

68. S. Ansolabehere and D. M. Konisky, *Cheap and Clean: How Americans Think About Energy in the Age of Global Warming* (MIT Press, 2014).

69. S. C. Klain, T. Satterfield, K. M. A. Chanb, and K. Lindberg, "Octopus's Garden Under the Blade: Boosting Biodiversity Increases Willingness to Pay for Offshore Wind in the United States," *Energy Research & Social Science* 69 (2020): 101744, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101744.

70. O. Joalland and P.-A. Mahieu, "Developing Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power Programs: A Choice Experiment Analysis in France," *Ecological Economics* 204 (2023): 107683, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107683.

71. T. Börger, T. L. Hooper, and M. Austen, "Valuation of Ecological and Amenity Impacts of an Offshore Windfarm as a Factor in Marine Planning," *Environmental Science and Policy* 54 (2015): 126–133, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.018.

72. C. Kermagoret, H. Levrel, A. Carlier, and J. Dachary-Bernard, "Individual Preferences Regarding Environmental Offset and Welfare Compensation: A Choice Experiment Application to an Offshore Wind Farm Project," *Ecological Economics* 129 (2016): 230–240, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.05.017.

73. M. Wolsink, "Wind Power and the NIMBY-Myth: Institutional Capacity and the Limited Significance of Public Support," *Renewable Energy* 21 (2000): 49–64.

74. E. Pol, A. Di Masso, A. Castrechini, M. R. Bonet, and T. Vidal, "Psychological Parameters to Understand and Manage the NIMBY Effect," *Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée* 56 (2006): 43–51.

75. P. Devine-Wright, S. Batel, O. Aas, B. Sovacool, M. C. Labelle, and A. Ruud, "A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Social Acceptance of Energy Infrastructure: Insights From Energy Storage," *Energy Policy* 107 (2017): 27–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.04.020.

76. P. Devine-Wright, "Rethinking NIMBYism: The Role of Place Attachment and Place Identity in Explaining Place-Protective Action," *Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology* 19 (2009): 426–441, https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1004.

77. F. Bever and S. Mistler, New Federal Lobster Rules Call for Seasonal Closures Off Maine, Weak Rope To Help Protect Right Whales, Maine Public, published August 31, 2021, accessed June 18, 2024, https://www.mainepublic.org/business-and-economy/2021-08-31/new-feder-al-lobster-rules-call-for-seasonal-closures-off-maine-weak-rope-to-help-protect-right-whales.

78. O. Handmaker, B. L. Keeler, and D. Milz, "What Type of Value Information Is Most Valuable to Stakeholders? Multi-Sector Perspectives on the Utility and Relevance of Water Valuation Information," *Environmental Science and Policy* 115 (2021): 47–60, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.006.

79. J. J. Druckman, "Communicating Policy-Relevant Science," *American Political Science Association* 48 (2015): 58–69, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096515000438.
## Appendix A

### Descriptors of Respondents in the United States and France

<table><thead><tr><td>Interviewees</td><td>Country</td><td>City</td><td>Gender</td><td>Age</td><td>Occupation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>United States of America (USA)</td><td>Belfast</td><td>Male</td><td>19</td><td>Student</td></tr><tr><td>2a</td><td>USA</td><td>Belfast</td><td>Female</td><td>87</td><td>Retired</td></tr><tr><td>2b</td><td>USA</td><td>Belfast</td><td>Male</td><td>63</td><td>Retired</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>USA</td><td>Belfast</td><td>Male</td><td>65</td><td>Grounds maintenance</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>USA</td><td>Belfast</td><td>Female</td><td>60</td><td>Artist</td></tr><tr><td>5a</td><td>USA</td><td>Belfast</td><td>Male</td><td>66</td><td>Writer/translator</td></tr><tr><td>5b</td><td>USA</td><td>Belfast</td><td>Female</td><td>66</td><td>Housewife</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>USA</td><td>Camden</td><td>Female</td><td>78</td><td>Shop owner</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>USA</td><td>Camden</td><td>Male</td><td>24</td><td>Small business owner</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>USA</td><td>Camden</td><td>Female</td><td>NA</td><td>Small business owner</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>USA</td><td>Camden</td><td>Female</td><td>61</td><td>Shop owner</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>USA</td><td>Camden</td><td>Female</td><td>42</td><td>Shop owner</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>USA</td><td>Camden</td><td>Female</td><td>54</td><td>Shop manager</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>USA</td><td>Rockport</td><td>Female</td><td>54</td><td>Animal sanctuary owner</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>USA</td><td>Brunswick</td><td>Female</td><td>64</td><td>Psychotherapist</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>USA</td><td>Brunswick</td><td>Female</td><td>NA</td><td>Artist</td></tr><tr><td>15a</td><td>USA</td><td>Brunswick</td><td>Female</td><td>75</td><td>Retired</td></tr><tr><td>15b</td><td>USA</td><td>Brunswick</td><td>Female</td><td>NA</td><td>Retired</td></tr><tr><td>15c</td><td>USA</td><td>Brunswick</td><td>Female</td><td>NA</td><td>Retired</td></tr><tr><td>16a</td><td>USA</td><td>Brunswick</td><td>Female</td><td>45</td><td>Data analyst</td></tr><tr><td>16b</td><td>USA</td><td>Brunswick</td><td>Male</td><td>50</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>USA</td><td>Brunswick</td><td>Female</td><td>34</td><td>Electronic medical record health systems trainer</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>USA</td><td>Rockland</td><td>Female</td><td>27</td><td>Art gallery manager</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>USA</td><td>Rockland</td><td>Female</td><td>42</td><td>Retail store manager</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>USA</td><td>Rockland</td><td>Male</td><td>66</td><td>Store manager</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>USA</td><td>Rockport</td><td>Male</td><td>74</td><td>Lawyer</td></tr><tr><td>22a</td><td>USA</td><td>Rockland</td><td>Female</td><td>67</td><td>Teacher</td></tr><tr><td>22b</td><td>USA</td><td>Rockland</td><td>Male</td><td>70</td><td>Electrician</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>USA</td><td>Belfast</td><td>Female</td><td>53</td><td>Artist</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>USA</td><td>Belfast</td><td>Male</td><td>19</td><td>In-store salesperson</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>France</td><td>Saint-Jean-de-Monts</td><td>Female</td><td>42</td><td>Travel advisor</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>France</td><td>Saint-Jean-de-Monts</td><td>Male</td><td>69</td><td>Trucker</td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>France</td><td>Saint-Jean-de-Monts</td><td>Male</td><td>69</td><td>Retired</td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>France</td><td>Saint-Jean-de-Monts</td><td>Male</td><td>54</td><td>Shop owner</td></tr><tr><td>29a</td><td>France</td><td>Saint-Jean-de-Monts</td><td>Male</td><td>27</td><td>Shop owner</td></tr><tr><td>29b</td><td>France</td><td>Saint-Jean-de-Monts</td><td>Female</td><td>19</td><td>In-store salesperson</td></tr><tr><td>30a</td><td>France</td><td>Saint-Jean-de-Monts</td><td>Male</td><td>65</td><td>Retired</td></tr><tr><td>30b</td><td>France</td><td>Saint-Jean-de-Monts</td><td>Female</td><td>40</td><td>Fishmonger</td></tr><tr><td>31a</td><td>France</td><td>Nantes</td><td>Female</td><td>24</td><td>Clinical technician</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Interviewees</td><td>Country</td><td>City</td><td>Gender</td><td>Age</td><td>Occupation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>31b</td><td>France</td><td>Nantes</td><td>Female</td><td>23</td><td>Student</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>France</td><td>Nantes</td><td>Male</td><td>27</td><td>Student</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>France</td><td>Nantes</td><td>Male</td><td>29</td><td>Pharmacist</td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td>France</td><td>Saint-Gilles-Croix-de-Vie</td><td>Male</td><td>50</td><td>Craftsman</td></tr><tr><td>35</td><td>France</td><td>Saint-Gilles-Croix-de-Vie</td><td>Female</td><td>22</td><td>Parliamentary assistant</td></tr></tbody></table>