## 3 Results  
The candidate locations (L1-L4) used in this study to simulate the process of selecting a location are situated in potentially suitable areas (outside the elimination areas). All candidate locations meet the basic preconditions for locating wind farms, since they have approximately the same characteristics with regard to their wind potential (average annual wind speed, constancy of annual wind distribution). That is, they have approximately the same production estimate. Each of the nominated locations has space for positioning 30 wind turbines. The locations cover a range of physical/geographical characteristics and spatial advantages and limitations, chosen in order to diversify the simulation of selecting a location. Location L1 is situated in a hilly area 300 m above sea level. Location L2 is situated in a lowland area near the international Danube River and the border with Romania (possible transboundary impacts). Locations L3 and L4 are located in lowland areas with similar physical and geographical characteristics. The evaluation results according to the weight categories (WC) indicate that the most favorable location, with the highest overall score, is location L4. Location L3 has a slightly lower value (3.5 points), while locations L1 and L2 have approximately the same rating but with values significantly lower than locations L3 and L4 (differences from 22 to 26.3 points). The main differences in the values of the candidate locations (Table 5) relate to the distance \begin{table}
**Spatial Criteria** & **Socio-Economic Criteria** \\ \hline Distance from protected natural areas & Proximity to energy facilities for connecting the wind farm \\ \hline Distance from water surfaces & Land purpose \\ \hline Distance from protected immovable cultural assets & Spatial organization of the land \\ \hline Distance from the nearest inhabited places and residential & Land ownership \\ buildings for noise & \\ \hline Distance from the nearest inhabited places and residential & Number of frosty days during the year \\ buildings for the effect of shadow flicker & \\ \hline Distance from the nearest inhabited places and residential & Possibility of transportation \\ buildings for the visual effect & \\ \hline Distance from traffic infrastructure & Engineering and geological characteristics of the soil \\ \hline \end{tabular} \
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline Seismicity \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{Landscape—exposure of the location}} & Relief features—terrain slopes \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{Local community’s acceptance of the location}} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Classifying the criteria into groups. from protected areas, migratory corridors and the infrastructure required for implementing the wind farm project. When it comes to the evaluation results for the candidate locations according to different scenarios (Table 6), the order of the locations is similar to the previous case. L4 is the most favorable location in scenario 1, where the spatial criteria are more significant, and in scenario 3, where both the spatial and socio-economic criteria have equal value. Location L3 has the highest rating in scenario 2, where the socio-economic criteria are more important than the spatial criteria.