CONSTRUCTING COOPERATION FROM THE SEABED UP: ASSESSING COMMERCIAL FISHERSâ•Ž PREFERENCES ON THE DESIGN OF OFFSHORE WIND FARMS

There are more than a dozen lease sites designated for the implementation of offshore wind energy generation from Massachusetts to the coast of North Carolina, yet the long-term impacts of these large wind farms on the domestic commercial fishing industry are largely unknown. There has been opposition from commercial fishermen regarding offshore wind development in the United States, and design and configuration of turbines has been significant topic of concern. The purpose of this research is to understand commercial fishermen’s views on the configuration of offshore wind farms. An anonymous online survey was used to assess commercial fishermen’s preferences on grid type, layout, and footprint. Each design feature was coupled with a set of Likert scale questions addressing to what extent risk factors of safety concerns, gear entanglements, and loss of landings influenced their decisions. By making this data accessible and comprehensive, developers have the opportunity to learn more about the historical habits of their regional commercial fishing industry as well as other potential existing uses of the ocean space. Descriptive statistics demonstrated that for the most part, the respondents of this survey preferred design features that were consistent with the current proposed layout from the New England developers (1nm grid going East/West). However, a major finding of this research demonstrated that the basis by which the five developers agreed on the standardized 1 nautical mile grid – to reduce gear conflicts by following the same pattern as the regional fixed gear/mobile gear agreement was the reason why the grid was dispreferred by survey respondents. Additionally, this research indicated that for a single proposed design, different perceived risks can simultaneously make the layout component more and less desirable depending on which risks the respondent values higher. This further demonstrates the incredibly complex nature of how design can impact perception of risk and should further stress the importance of cooperation and information sharing between the offshore wind and commercial fishing industry. This research is conducted in cooperation with the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance (RODA), the New England Fisheries Management Council, as well as the Commercial Fishing Center of Rhode Island (CFCRI).

One set of decisions that can be made to promote cooperation between both industries is offshore wind design--the way the turbines are configured in the ocean space. Engineers must optimize the amount of energy extraction in a lease area by arranging turbines in a manner that promotes technical efficiency. However, developers must also take stakeholder safety and historic usage into account when proposing a design layout. There are several key design components to offshore wind that will impact the fishing industry--orientation of turbines, the grid layout of turbines, and the total footprint of the project. Each design has the propensity to either increase risk or mitigate it, and this research sought to understand layout preferences from the commercial fishing industry.
Using an online survey, this study asked members of the Eastern U.S.
commercial fishing industry to identify their preferences and indicate the factors driving those preferences. The findings of this research highlight the importance of information sharing, adding context to the complicated risks that are associated with fishing in a wind farm lease area and demonstrating that there are gaps of missing knowledge between the developers and the ocean users.

Why Renewable Energy?
Globally, 24% of our power demand came from renewable energy sources in 2017, and this share is projected to hit 30% in 2023 (IEA Renewables on the Rise 2018). This shift from fossil fuels to naturally occurring and theoretically inexhaustible forms of energy is attributed to the finite nature of coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as their negative externalities on the environment. become very expensive to both find and harvest them once they're at low global levels, and the cost will rise exponentially. As a society, we really won't be able to survive without energy, and allowing our most common sources to deplete without having a safety net of renewables would be incredibly detrimental to our economies and quality of life. Harvesting energy from wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, and from ocean renewables are all ways the global energy system can switch to using more renewable and clean sources.

Offshore Wind
Garnering energy from offshore wind is a form of renewable energy that has been utilized globally. Although it is not the most commonly used renewable energy source, it has the opportunity to generate large amounts of electricity for communities along the coast. Compared to onshore wind, offshore wind energy generation has garnered lower levels of public awareness, results in different types of aesthetic impacts, has a marine context versus a terrestrial context, and involves completely different types of community and government stakeholders in the decision-making processes (Wiersma et al 2014). However, it has the capacity to generate a substantial amount of power in close proximity to the communities that demand it the most.
Forty-one percent of the world lives within 62 miles of the coast (Martinez et al 2007) and being able to harness energy produced within a hundred miles of this population, versus oil rigs across the world, is a far more efficient way of managing the energy transfer process. Additionally, twenty-one of the thirty-three global "megacities" are situated directly on the coast, so the energy source would be very close to the communities that need it the most (Id). Currently, there are seventeen countries that are currently utilizing offshore wind power which in total generated 23,140 megawatts of electricity in 2018 (Global Wind Energy Council).
Compared to the more common onshore wind farms, offshore wind farms are more expensive to construct but generate more energy since wind resources are stronger off the coast. Some of the perceived benefits from offshore wind harvesting are reduced reliance on carbon dioxide emitting energy (Dvorak et al 2013), reduced air pollution (Delucci 2011), a surge in local job opportunities (Walker et al 2014), and community benefit funds (Id) such as compensatory payments, as well as improved infrastructure (Klain et al 2016).
Europe is leading the global offshore wind industry with a current offshore

Engineering Basics
Technical efficiency, profit maximization, and working with preexisting ocean uses are all factors that need to be taken into consideration when designing an offshore wind farm. Hashemi and Neill (2019) provide a useful summary of the technology. Each project is different based on the wind supply and bathymetric components of the ocean space they are trying to utilize. Wind speed and consistency varies at every site based on the climate of the region, the Coriolis force, and the physical geography of the area. One of the limitations on constructing an offshore wind farm is water depth. The deeper the water in which you're trying to construct a wind farm, the more complex the technology is that's required to stabilize the individual turbines on the ocean floor. The physical turbines themselves range in size depending on how modern their technology is and how much electricity they generate.
In shallow water, developers may use a simple monopile to "ground" the turbine to the ocean floor, where the single base of the turbine is driven into the seafloor with no other structural support. Between thirty meters and sixty meters of depth, turbines require a jacket or tripod structure to anchor them down, and deeper than sixty meters, Microsited turbines are set in a manner that takes advantage of topographic channeling and reduces power losses from wind turbine wakes (Id). Micrositing is often driven by maximizing power output and minimizing cost of energy-a process known as optimization. Coupled with optimization as a major constraint in the early stage farm development, engineers should also consider the priorities of other ocean users in terms of risk as part of design criteria.
Layout and wind farm design has been a source of conflict within the commercial fishing industry leading to installation delays and lawsuits (Faulkner, EcoRI News, 2019). Within just a couple of years, the Vineyard Wind project had to change its grid pattern, transit lanes, and orientation several times to accommodate both the commercial fishing industry and maritime commerce (Vineyard Wind webpage). This conflict has pushed construction more than a year past their proposed start date and cost the company millions in compensatory packages (Faulkner, EcoRI News, 2019).
Three design factors that are particularly important to both developers as well as stakeholders are turbine orientation, grid layout, and total footprint of offshore wind farms. Orientation is a design element that is very important to the commercial fishing industry because the way turbines are oriented may interfere with historical fixed gear drop-off patterns (MA DMF). This potential for conflict over configuration was made evident during the early and middle stages of the Vineyard Wind project. Within the New England lease area, there is a decades-old "gentleman's agreement" between trawlers and fixed gear users to lay out lobster traps and gill nets in rows from east to west and spaced one nautical mile apart to avoid gear entanglements (Providence Journal, Kuffner 2018). During the time of the negotiations between the Fishers Advisory Board (FAB), discussions over orientation of the project's turbines were central because there was concern over the (then) proposed orientation of Northwest/Southeast and how that would impact the set East / West fixed gear layout plan already existing in the area. Gear entanglements between fixed gear and mobile gear users are common but are costly because it damages both the fishing gear, the fishing vessels, and takes a long time to untangle which is why gentlemen's agreements are incredibly important to the industry to limit the likelihood of conflict from happening. By constructing a wind farm that does not follow the same grid pattern of gear agreements, it is a concern that "trawlers would not only snag their nets on traps and other fixed gear but would also run the risk of colliding with a turbine" (Providence Journal, Kuffner 2018). Similar to orientation, grid layout and footprint of offshore wind farms have the propensity to either follow or disrupt historical ocean uses and transit routes. The pattern by which turbines are set in the ocean space can either promote or inhibit navigation, and the layout of wind farms can create or eliminate zones in the ocean space non-transitable because of the spacing between the turbines.
Developers make decisions regarding these three factors based on what will maximize the total efficiency of the offshore wind farm. These design elements will vary from project to project since the wind resources, weather, and seabed bathymetry differ by location. For this study, turbine orientation is how the turbines are related to each other in reference to true North. Grid layout is defined by how the turbines are aligned with each other relative to the lease space. Lastly, the total footprint refers to how densely clustered or spread apart the turbines across the lease area. Carolina) because they're managing the waters that have current offshore wind leases.
In regard to these council's views on offshore wind development, their goal is to "support policies for U.S. energy development and operations that will sustain the health of marine ecosystems and fisheries resources while minimizing risks to the marine environment and fisheries" (Council Policy on Wind Energy 2018). Although this is a very idealistic approach to cooperation since there is no model in place to guarantee minimized risks, they address that steps need to be taken to minimize potential negative consequences of offshore wind development to the domestic commercial fishing industry. Tom Sproul reported in an interview that radar interference from the turbines while travelling in and around wind farms may have the possibility to add more hazards, especially in poor weather and limited visibility (Sebai 2019). He also shared that it is very possible that the current risk estimates of fishing within offshore energy areas are less than the actual risk, and concerns over both navigational hazards and crowding of displaced vessels outside of the project should be taken into account when reviewing potential safety implications (Sebai 2019).
In regard to increased cost of fishing, there is fear that insurance costs will rise due to increased risk of accidents, the farms will have negative effects on the targeted fish stocks, and there will be increased fuel costs navigating around wind farms to travel to fishing areas (MA DMF 2019). Massachusetts is the state on the east coast that has the highest value of landings coming from areas of wind farm leases followed by Rhode Island and New Jersey (Livermore 2017). Based off of vessel monitoring system data (VMS), Massachusetts had over $19 million worth of landings in the offshore wind lease sites through six years (2011-2016), Rhode Island had over $10 million worth of landings, and New Jersey had over $8 million worth of landings (Livermore 2017). Although it is highly unlikely that commercial vessels will not be able to fish at all in the wind area sites and face full exclusion, there is a chance that their total landings will be reduced due to the shared space, and the states listed above would have the most to lose. Offshore wind developers have given compensatory packages for landing losses to the commercial fishing industry in the past, but there are other sources of potential loss that have not been taken into account when calculating the current industry loss estimates (Sebai 2019). These include inflation effects, the issues with using VTR data to estimate fishing revenue density, the lack of scientific consensus, and the economic benefits of shore-side stakeholders such as processors, distributors, and local restaurants (Sebai 2019).
There is also high scientific uncertainty on the long-term effect the turbines will have on the ecosystems they are placed in, and although that it is agreed upon by regulators and stakeholders alike that there will be impacts, the type and scale of them are widely unknown (BOEM 2015). This amount of uncertainty sparks concern within the fishing industry because it is unknown to what extent offshore wind development This specific orientation was chosen because it allows for "safe navigation of fishing, tanker, and cargo vessels without the need for designated transit corridors, increases navigational safety, responsive to fishermen's requests for 1nm turbine spacing and east-west rows, and facilitates search and rescue operations" (Proposal for a uniform 1 X 1 nm wind turbine layout for New England Offshore Wind). The announcement of this proposed layout came at the end of data collection for this study, and the findings from this survey will be compared to this agreement. A major component for deciding on this grid orientation was based on a "gentleman's agreement" between fixed and mobile gear users to avoid gear entanglements. This agreement establishes that fixed gear will be spaced 1 nautical mile apart in areas where both gear types coexist (Providence Journal, Kuffner 2018).

Research Purpose and Design
The purpose of this research is to understand commercial fishermen's views on the configuration of offshore wind farms. The responses for preference of grid type, layout, and footprint were each coupled with Likert scale questions addressing to what extent risk factors of safety concerns, gear entanglements, and loss of landings influenced their decisions. These three specific risk factors were chosen due to patterns in literature (Alexander 2013, MA DMF 2019) as well as direct quotes from commercial fishermen as big potential negative impacts as concern.
Findings from this study can be used to promote cooperation between the two industries as well as facilitate information sharing and communication. By doing so, developers learn more about the historical habits of their regional commercial fishing industry as well as other potential existing uses of the ocean space they wouldn't have known without this data. This research was conducted in cooperation with the Rhode

Research Questions
Since there has been conflict between the offshore wind industry and the Before taking the survey, respondents were asked to read consent information, which included the purpose of the survey, assurances of their anonymity, the research integrity approval, and the contact information to go to with questions. By proceeding to the rest of the survey, they indicated that they have read and understood the consent document and volunteered to participate in this study.
The survey included four sections:   Section 2 Grid Orientation: The following section assesses respondent's preferences on the grid orientation of offshore wind projects. The graphics provided were wind farms of a) North/South orientation, b) East/West orientation, c) Northeast/ Southwest orientation, and d) Northwest/Southeast orientation (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Orientation choices
All of the graphics were created using PowerPoint. The respondent was asked to rank their preferences in grid orientation 1-4, 4 being the most favorable and 1 being the least.
Section 3 Overall Footprint: The final set of questions from the survey asked respondents to choose between wind farms that have "turbines that are tightly clustered together with maneuverable space around the rest of the leased area" or "turbines are spread out across the entire lease area with room to maneuver between them" (Figure 5). Respondents were able to identify their role on the boat and could select multiple options with the majority self-associating as boat owners. The majority of respondents self-identified as being vessel owners followed by "other." Respondents in the "other" category , which may account for people who took the survey that have a stake within the commercial fishing industry since they were on those specific listservs, but they could be retired or work for processing plants, non-profit groups, or other fishingrelated organizations.

Figure 7: Distribution of respondent's role on the boat
There were fifteen permits the respondents could claim registry for, and they were able to select as many as they carry. Most respondents selected more than one permit.
The permits carried by the highest number of respondents were for squid, Atlantic mackerel, and butterfish, followed by black sea bass, scup, and then Atlantic bluefish.  Respondents were able to pick between "never, rarely, several times, and most of the time" for this question. As shown above, no respondents believed that they rarely discussed offshore wind development in the United States in the past year, and the majority of the respondents have integrated the topic into conversation.

Design Preferences:
The following figures show the distribution of respondents' first choice grid type, orientation, and footprint preferences and do not take into account how they ranked the rest of the options. There were very distinct preferences for some of the design features and varied preferences for others.

Regression Models:
A linear regression was used to calculate the relationships between the ranked grid type or grid orientation choices and the extent to which each risk factor (reduced safety, gear conflict, reduced landings) played a role in their decisions. Linear regressions can determine if the preferences for both grid type and orientation can be captured by their risk responses, and the coefficients can be interpreted with ease.
When calculating a linear regression with the ranking of each choice as the dependent variable, one must assume that the respondents prefer the first choice over the second choice by the same amount that one prefers the third choice and last choice, and that may not be the case in reality. Some respondents may prefer the first choice over the rest of the choices by a really large margin, or they may dislike the last choice far more than they dislike the second choice compared to their first choice, and linear regression models do not capture that behavior. Due to this hidden underlying information, the data was coded into favorite and not favorite as well as least favorite and not least favorite, and the regressions were run from there. It is expected that respondents may have an easier time determining their favorite and least favorite grids or orientations from the four options instead of ranking them against each other. The ranked data sets were re-coded into 2 groups-the first where the "favorite" orientation or grid type was coded as 1 and everything else was 0, and the second group the "least favorite" orientation or grid type was coded as 1 and everything else was 0. A linear probability model was used to calculate the relationships between preferred footprint and the four risk factors. The binary nature of respondents choosing their preferred footprint out of two choices allows for the use of this model. This method of analysis was also used to keep this regression consistent with the other linear regressions and to create coefficients that are easier to interpret.  Based on the coefficients table, valuing landings was a reason the respondents picked the grid layout (p-value=.023) whereas valuing safety was a reason that the grid was not their favorite (p-value=.036). Following the regressions of favorite/ least favorite grid type, linear regressions of the raw rankings 1nm grid and straight lines based on the risk factors were conducted to see if there was any more explanatory power from the risks, but there was not (Appendix 2). There were no additional revelations of the risks being significant predictors of choice when organized using a different type of regression. This regression had an adjusted R Square value of .47; 47% of the variation in whether a grid option was the least desirable or not is accounted for by the risk factors.
Since the coefficient on safety interacted with random last the least favorite choice was negative, valuing safety was a reason that the random turbine grid pattern was not the least favorite (p-value=.021). The linear regression on first choice of orientation has an adjusted R Square of .175, meaning that 17.5% of the variation in whether an orientation is the favorite of the four choices or not is due to the risk factors. The ANOVA for this regression had a p-value of .000 which means that the model statistically significantly predicts the favorite orientation. Based on the intercepts, East/West was the favorite since it was positive (.770, p-value=.000). Respondents who were more concerned with gear entanglements favored the East/West grid less and were less likely to pick it as their first choice (p-value=.003). Following the regressions of favorite/ least favorite orientation, linear regressions of the raw rankings of the East/West orientation based on the risk factors were conducted to see if there was any more explanatory power from the risks, but there was not. There were no additional revelations of the risks being significant predictors of choice when organized using a different type regression, and gear conflict was still the only significant predictor for East/West orientation (Appendix 2)  (.522, p-value=.011), but there is no significant information provided by the regression as to why. It is assumed that the reasons why the respondents disliked the NWSE orientation is captured by intangible behaviors not captured by the three risk factors. This binary regression model of layout type and footprint shows which risk factor (safety, gear conflict, or loss of landings) is the best predictor for footprint type.
Although none of the coefficients are statistically significant at the 5% level, the largest exponent is for perceived safety risks. In this model, the respondent's perceived risk of reduced safety in the given layout options had the largest impact on their decision on preferred offshore wind design, followed by risks of gear entanglements and then risks of reduced landings.

DISCUSSION
This research sought to understand: • What are fishermen's preferences for configuration?
• Does safety, gear conflict, and fear of reduced landings influence some design features-such as orientation, grid type, or footprint-over others?
• Were the reported preferences consistent with the proposed design features from the five offshore wind developers in New England?

I: WHAT ARE FISHERMEN'S PREFERENCES FOR CONFIGURATION?
When developing an offshore wind farm, developers and engineers must make their designs with overall technical efficiency and profit maximization in mind, on top of taking into account existing ocean uses. There are certain design attributes engineers must meet, but they also should consider the priorities of the commercial fishing industry in terms of risk in design and maximizing energy. Adding safety and potential conflicts with ocean users should be added as part of this design criteria, and both the preferences and risk assessments generated from this research could supplement those constraints.

Orientation
The most favored orientation among respondents was East/West. 48.6% of the respondents preferred EW orientation, 21.6% preferred North/South, 16.2% preferred Northeast/Southwest, and 13.5% preferred Northwest/Southeast. The distinct preference of an East/West orientation over the other choices is consistent with the preferences of the Fisheries Advisory Board during the Vineyard Wind negotiations.
This makes sense because the majority of my respondents were from the same port states that fish in the area of the gentlemen's agreement (Massachusetts and Rhode Island) and may already be abiding by the East/West fishing pattern.

Grid Type
43.8% of respondents preferred the one nautical mile grid, 40.6% preferred the multiple parallel line layout, 9.3% favor the randomly scattered turbines, and 6.3% prefer the single line of turbines. The type of grid that the turbines are arranged in is both important to the technical efficiency of the wind farm but is also important to stakeholders in regards to navigational safety. Based on the Gentlemen's Agreement highlighted above, the plurality's preferences were consistent with a one nautical mile fixed gear grid, but it was the majority only by 3.2% which is negligible. The differences between the top two preferred grid types was that one had a grid type where there is a wider corridor between rows and the other has turbines that are all equidistant from each other. However, both of these two grid types are similar because they both offer uniformity on configuration. Both may facilitate navigation within the offshore wind farm, but perhaps to different extents.
Layout 62.6% of respondents reported that they prefer to fish in a wind farm with turbines that are spread out across the entire lease area with room to maneuver between them compared to turbines that are tightly clustered together with maneuverable space around the rest of the leased area. With the preferred footprint, it is possible to navigate between the turbines throughout the entire lease area whereas the latter had "zones" within the lease area that would effectively be closed off to fishing since they were not navigable. A big fear from the commercial fishing industry is that the offshore wind areas will become closed to fishing and become pseudo marine protected areas (Commercial Fisheries Center of Rhode Island). Therefore, it's not surprising that the majority of respondents prefer the design that-albeit potentially with some challenges in poor weather and poor visibility-allows them to be able to fish throughout the entire lease area.
It is important to note that all of these design components also have impacts on the overall technical efficiency of the wind farm, and developers make decisions on how to lay out the turbines to maximize the amount of energy the farm creates while keeping the levelized cost of energy as low as possible. Following the suggestions of the commercial fishing industry is great in regard to improving transit safety but may not be technically or economically feasible. INFUENCE SOME DESIGN FEATURES-SUCH AS ORIENTATION, GRID   TYPE, OR FOOTPRINT-OVER OTHERS? A linear regression was used to calculate the relationships between the ranked grid type or grid orientation choices and the extent to which each risk factor (reduced safety, gear conflict, reduced landings) played a role in their decisions.

Grid Type
Valuing landings and fears of reduced fishing output was a reason why respondents' favored the grid layout (p-value=0.023) of the four options whereas valuing their safety at sea was a reason that the grid layout was not their favorite (p-value=0.036). This is particularly notable because it demonstrates that there may be opposing factors that commercial fishermen take into account when stating their design preferences for offshore wind farms. There may be underlying checks and balances present where one design feature may improve one concern but worsen another. This further demonstrates the incredibly complex nature of this issue and how there must be intensive research conducted to truly find the associated risks offshore wind development will pose on the commercial fishing industry. This also demonstrates the need for further productive information sharing between stakeholders and developers since the risks may be far more complicated than they've been appearing in the early stages of research and development in the United States.

Orientation
An interesting finding of this linear regression model method is for orientation; valuing the ability to avoid gear entanglements was a reason why the East/West orientation was dispreferred in the model. This is particularly notable because the five major developers proposed the East/West grid to reduce the risk gear entanglements by being consistent with the gentlemen's agreement in the area. The fact that risk of gear entanglements was a reason why the East West grid was not the favorite choice for grid type contradicts this agreement, and this opens up the question "who really cares about the E/W gentleman's agreement" to discussion. Is it the fixed gear fisherman that really values that agreement? How important is the gentleman's agreement to the entire fishing fleet in the New England lease area? Since this gentleman's agreement was part of the core basis for developing this standardized grid pattern, it is important to further research the importance and validity of this gear pattern and if it benefits members of the entire commercial fishing industry.

Layout
Although none of the coefficients were statistically significant, respondent's perceived risk of reduced safety in the given layout options had the largest impact on their decision on preferred offshore wind design. Since the coefficient was negative, impacts on safety was the primary reason they disliked the tightly clustered layout.
This makes sense because tightly clustered turbines would be harder to maneuver around, thus increasing risks at sea if fishermen choose to transit between them.

DEVELOPERS IN NEW ENGLAND?
In November of 2019, the five developers that control the seven major lease areas off of Massachusetts agreed to standardize the design of their farms. This decision was made to "accommodate long-standing practices designed to minimize conflict between fixed and mobile fishing gear" (Proposal for a uniform 1 X 1 nm wind turbine layout for New England Offshore Wind). A grid type of 1 nautical mile by 1 nautical mile going East/West relative to true north was proposed with no additional transit lanes. This announcement came shortly after the data collection for this research closed. Although the data collected for this thesis is not a true representative of the entire commercial fishing population off of the east coast, some of the responses were consistent with the proposed layout and others were not.
Based on the survey, the choices that are consistent with the developer's proposed layout are the East/West orientation, the 1 by 1 nautical mile grid, and the footprint that displayed turbines that were spread out across the entire lease area with room to maneuver between them. Referring back to the preferred choices, 48.6% of the respondents preferred EW orientation, 43.8% of the respondents preferred the one nautical mile grid, and 62.6% of the respondents reported that they prefer to fish in a wind farm with turbines that are spread out across the entire lease area with room to maneuver between them.

RESEARCH
The data for this research was collected by using a convenience sampling method by sending out the survey to industry listservs. Convenience sampling is a subset of non-probability sampling in which it is impossible to specify the probability that any person will be included in the sample (Robson 2011). Given the time constraints and limited access to survey participants this research had, purposefully sending out the survey to certain listservs that have many members from the targeted population aided in collecting data but may have led to some research bias. Based on the technological nature of this research, the only members of the commercial fishing industry that were able to partake in this research must have had working email addresses and were members of one of the four listservs this survey was sent out from.
There is a very large population of the commercial fishing industry that did not meet those qualifications and did not get their opinions and preferences shared.
Additionally, the respondents were not selected randomly-there was bias in who was able to gain access to this survey but there was not a better alternative method of data collection at the time.
If this topic is researched further, getting the survey out by a triangulation of online distribution, mail distribution, as well as meeting with commercial fishermen face to face would greatly reduce the bias in convenience sampling and would get data from individuals that may not be as present online. Another suggestion for further research would be to both move the season the data is to be collected and earmark a longer period of time to collect data. A major limitation of this study was the low survey population and a high drop-out rate of respondents taking the survey. Over half of the respondents that started the survey actually completed it and working to cut down the length and time requirement of the survey would be incredibly beneficial.
Another way to get maximum responses is to tailor the survey distribution to when commercial fishermen have more time in their schedules.

CONCLUSION
With fifteen active leases in the United States and more to come, offshore wind development and its relationship to existing ocean uses is going to be a topic of discussion and conflict in years to come. The commercial fishing industry has close to two million dollars in revenue (NOAA 2018) and drives local economies and trade.
Offshore wind farm leases can be zoned in fishing areas or common transit routes, and it is unclear what ecological, social, and economic impacts the projects will incur on the fishing industry. Besides micrositing and maximizing technical efficiency of projects, engineers should also consider the priorities and safety of the commercial fishing community in terms of risk in design and maximizing efficiency. The physical design of the offshore windfarm has potential to positively or negatively impact the co-sharing of the ocean space between the two industries. Therefore, perceived risks from offshore wind design preferences from the commercial fishing industry requires extensive research and information sharing. The purpose of this research was to assess 1) what the fishermen's preferences for configuration are; 2) determine if safety, gear conflict, and fear of reduced landings influence some design features over others, and 3) to evaluate if the reported preferences are consistent with the proposed design features from the five offshore wind developers in New England.
Descriptive statistics demonstrated that for the most part, the respondents of this survey preferred design features that were consistent with the proposed layout from the New England developers. 48.6% of the respondents preferred EW orientation, 43.8% of respondents preferred the one nautical mile grid, and 62.6% of my respondents reported that they prefer to fish in a wind farm with turbines that are spread out across the entire lease area with room to maneuver between them.
One major finding of this research is that the basis by which the five developers agreed on the standardized 1 nautical mile grid -reduce gear conflicts by following the same pattern as the regional fixed gear/mobile gear agreement -was the reason why the grid was dispreferred by survey respondents. This juxtaposition questions both the validity of the gentlemen's agreement in the area as well as the extent to which the developers consulted the commercial fishing industry outside of fixed gear users. This research also revealed that for a single proposed design, different perceived risks may simultaneously make the layout component more and less desirable depending on how much each respondent values each risk factor. This conflict in risk assessment demonstrates that there are many factors at play when trying to design a wind farm that promotes cooperation between the offshore wind and commercial fishing industry.
Research on offshore wind design will become increasingly important as leases continue to sell and more farms occupy the ocean space off of the Atlantic coast. This research suggests that although setting standardized offshore wind designs may facilitate consistency and iteration, there is no guarantee it satisfies the preferences of all stakeholders in the entire area. Contrastingly, it is unclear if a single design proposal that is favored by every stakeholder exists, and perhaps the best layout proposed by developers is the design that reached pareto efficiency. Either way, shifting protocols in cooperation to a more adaptive approach versus a rigid set of design elements may promote inclusion in the development process in the future. This type of technological progress must adhere to slower developmental timelines in order to coexist with historical ocean uses and policies, and this research further justifies the need for further research. Making purposeful decisions on the layout of the farms can promote cooperation between the two major industries and improve the sustainability of expanding offshore wind development in the future.