CONNECT FOR 
GROWTH (C4G) 
ALBANIA 
OFFSHORE WIND 
SITING STUDY 
REPORT 
VERSION 
2.0
DATE SUBMITTED 
August 25, 2022
RTI PROJECT NUMBER 
0217240.003
TASK ORDER 
NUMBER 
7200AA19D00028 / 
7200AA21F00012
 NSMMOOC AIDMEIKWI: TIEDRC
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED FOR REVIEW BY THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID). THE VIEWS 
EXPRESSED IN THIS PUBLICATION DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL 
DEVELOPMENT OR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. IF YOU HAVE ANY DIFFICULTIES ACCESSING THIS DOCUMENT, PLEASE CONTACT 
ACCESSIBILITY@RTI.ORG. THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.

i | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY 5
3 STUDY AREA 6
4 EXCLUSION CRITERIA 7
5 DATA SOURCE 8
6 SELECTION PROCESS 9
6.1 CRITERIA FOR PRESELECTION OF SUITABLE SITES 9
6.1.1 PRESELECTION CRITERIA 9
6.2 EVALUATION PHASE 14
6.2.1 INDICATORS 14
6.2.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA 14
6.2.3 SITE SELECTION RANKING 14
6.2.4 PARAMETER WEIGHTING 18
7 SUITABILITY MAPPING 20
7.1 MAP OF EXCLUDED AREAS 20
7.2 MAP OF POTENTIALLY SUITABLE AREAS 21
7.3 MAP OF SUITABLE SITES 22
7.4 MAP OF WIND SPEED IN MOST SUITABLE SITES 23
7.5 MAP OF BATHYMETRY IN MOST SUITABLE SITES 24
8 STUDY LIMITATIONS 25
9 BIBLIOGRAPHY 26
APPENDICES 
APPENDIX A: WORKBOOK - ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT - SITING EVALUATION
APPENDIX B: NO-GO AREAS MAP
APPENDIX C: SUITABILITY MAP
APPENDIX D: SUITABILITY CLASSES MAP
APPENDIX E: SUITABLE AREAS WIND SPEED MAP
APPENDIX F: SUITABLE AREAS BATHYMETRY MAP
FIGURES
FIGURE 1. SUITABILITY MAP (QUINTILES) FOR OWPS..............................................................................4
FIGURE 2. MAP OF THE STUDY AREA..............................................................................................................6
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | ii
FIGURE 3. EXCLUDED AREAS – PART ONE.................................................................................................12
FIGURE 4. EXCLUDED AREAS – PART TWO ...............................................................................................13
FIGURE 5. MAP OF EXCLUDED AREAS ..........................................................................................................20
FIGURE 6. MAP OF POTENTIALLY SUITABLE AREAS ................................................................................21
FIGURE 7. SUITABILITY CLASSES (QUINTILES) FOR OFFSHORE WIND PROJECTS ......................22
FIGURE 8. MAP OF WIND SPEED IN MOST SUITABLE SITES..................................................................23
FIGURE 9. MAP OF BATHYMETRY IN MOST SUITABLE SITES................................................................24
TABLES
TABLE 1. INDICATORS...........................................................................................................................................2
TABLE 2. EXCLUSION CRITERIA ........................................................................................................................7
TABLE 3. DATA SOURCES.....................................................................................................................................8
TABLE 4. INDICATORS.........................................................................................................................................14
TABLE 5. WIND SPEED.........................................................................................................................................15
TABLE 6. SEA DEPTH.............................................................................................................................................15
TABLE 7. DISTANCE FROM SHORE.................................................................................................................16
TABLE 8. DISTANCE FROM PORTS..................................................................................................................16
TABLE 9. DISTANCE FROM HIGH-VOLTAGE GRID ..................................................................................17
TABLE 10. SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION.....................................................................................................17
TABLE 11. IBAS, IMMAS, AND MPAS ................................................................................................................18
TABLE 12. PARAMETER WEIGHTING .............................................................................................................18
TABLE 13. EXAMPLE SUITABILITY SCORE CALCULATION....................................................................19
TABLE 14. BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................26
iii | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
< Less Than
> More Than
ACER Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators
AIMS Albania, Italy, Montenegro, and Serbia
ALPEX Albanian Power Exchange
C4G Connect for Growth
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EU European Union
GIS Geographic Information System
IBA Important Bird Area
IMMA Important Marine Mammal Area
KM Kilometer
M Meter
M/S Meters per Second
MIE Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy
MCA Multicriteria Analysis
MPA Marine-Protected Areas
NM Nautical Mile
OWP Offshore Wind Project
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WDPA World Database of Protected Areas

1 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Albanian Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy (MIE) 
requested support from the United States Agency for 
International Development (USAID) for offshore wind 
power development, to understand the areas of Albanian sea 
waters best suited to offshore wind development via
conducting an offshore wind power suitability study.
USAID fulfilled this request through Connect for Growth 
(C4G), a project aimed at strengthening energy security and 
resilience in USAID’s partner countries in the Europe and 
Eurasia region as part of the U.S.–Europe Energy Bridge 
project. C4G provides technical guidance, recommendations, 
and support for energy market development; regional 
integration and reforms; diversified and efficient resource 
utilization and planning; and resilient energy systems, to 
advance USAID’s goal of increasing connectivity and 
cooperation in the energy sector between partner countries 
and the EU. C4G aims to respond quickly and effectively to 
emerging issues and technical needs in partner countries that 
impact the regional energy sector and critical infrastructure. 
C4G developed this study, drawing upon existing public 
databases, to identify potentially suitable areas to develop 
offshore wind projects (OWPs) off the coast of Albania.
Methodology
C4G’s methodology supports the decision-making process 
for preliminary identification of the most suitable areas for 
the development of OWPs, considering technical feasibility, 
environmental impact, and social acceptability. The site 
identification methodology consisted of:
• Creating a Geographic Information System (GIS) 
database to collect and manage geospatial data describing the physical, technical, 
environmental, and social features that characterize the study area.
• Combining the multilayer GIS database with a multicriteria analysis (MCA).
The criteria to determine the suitability of areas for OWPs reflect the criteria adopted in the most 
authoritative information sources available (see the Bibliography section) at the date of publication,
regarding both (1) constraints (or “no-go areas”) that exclude OWPs, and (2) indicators to 
characterize the suitability of an area for the sustainable development of an OWP.
The indicators influencing the suitability of an offshore area include technical (including cost impacts), 
environmental, and social factors. The main indicators used in this study are shown in Table 1, 
below.
 NSMMOO CAIDMEIKWI: TIEDRC
The goal of the methodology is 
to support the decision-making 
process for preliminary 
identification of the most 
suitable areas for the 
development of OWPs, 
considering technical feasibility, 
environmental impact, and 
social acceptability.
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 2
TABLE 1. INDICATORS
CATEGORY SPECIFICATIONS OBJECTIVE
Technical Wind speed at 100-meter (m) hub height Maximize
Technical Sea depth (> 30 m) Minimize
Technical / Social Distance from shoreline (> 10 kilometers 
[km])
Maximize for distance < 30 km; 
Minimize for distance > 30 km
Environmental Distance from marine protected areas
(MPAs), Important Bird Areas (IBAs), and 
Important Marine Mammal Areas (IMMAs) 
(> 5 km)
Maximize up to 20 km
Technical Distance from high-voltage electricity grid Minimize
Technical Distance from local ports Minimize
Social High-density ship routes Minimize interference
The study team assigned each indicator a rating (up to 100) and applied a final weighting factor to 
calculate the level of suitability. All details are reported in 6.2 Evaluation Phase of this study.
Although the methodology adopted the outcomes of some of the most recent scientific literature, 
preselection criteria, indicators, evaluation criteria and site selection ranking were customized based 
on the specific characteristics of the study area, allowing for a country-specific suitability index.
The criteria were then weighted based on their relative importance, and according to information 
received during a consultation process with stakeholders (which included meetings with Albanian 
Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy, the Albanian Power Corporation KESH and the Albanian
Transmission System Operator OST), such as the importance of preserving the environment and
tourist vocation of coastal areas and considering the configuration of the power transmission 
network. 
The main output of the study is a map showing the suitable areas and their level of suitability. The 
study also includes the suitability map and complete set of exclusion criteria and no-go areas as GIS 
files. This information is available for a more in-depth analysis to locate the most reliable areas for 
siting an OWP, such that the site will ideally meet and trade off the goals of sustainability with 
construction and operation, according to the scale and consistency of available data sources.
Applications and limitations
This study can enable a more confident and efficient decision-making process for further stages of 
OWP development, by providing a first reference point to authorities, developers, and stakeholders.
This study provides neither a feasibility assessment nor an impact assessment of any specific wind 
farm project. Further evaluation is required to inform the suitability of these areas. Since OWP 
technology is constantly evolving, this study makes assumptions regarding the future technical 
feasibility of floating offshore technology that developers should duly verify to inform the design of 
specific offshore wind farms.
3 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
Due to its country-specific nature, the suitability index should not be compared with suitability 
values obtained in other parts of the world.
This study does not include a complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that 
may exist at the sites. Examples of unevaluated criteria include bird migration corridors, oil and gas 
offshore structures and leases, marine archaeological sites and shipwrecks, military zones, and 
aquaculture. More information is in section 8 Study Limitations.
Findings
Figure 1, below, shows the Albanian OWP suitable areas. The highest suitability rankings are shown 
in blue color (top quintile), with an overall area of 1,480 km2. Most of the suitable areas would
require floating foundations for OWPs, as the water depth is greater than 60 m. 
The windiest areas are located in the southern portion of the map (about 30-40 km off the 
Karaburun Peninsula), mainly in very deep seas (900-1,000 m), where only floating offshore 
technology will be feasible in the future. The ultimate suitability of these areas will have to be 
evaluated considering the development of offshore floating technology. Shallower areas (from 50 to 
250 m sea depth), preferable for currently available bottom-fixed and floating technologies, are 
located on the northern portion of the map, where the average wind speed is approximately 6.5-6.7 
m/s, the lower limit of suitability. 
Considering, as a first approximation, a 5 MW/km2 power density for OWP in European regions, the 
availability of suitable areas seems not to be a constraint to the development of OWP. Final OWP 
area needs will be better identified in future studies, for which the Government of Albania might set 
targets for OWP that will lay out more clearly the timing, technology and capacity pertaining to this 
power generation source.
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 4
FIGURE 1. SUITABILITY MAP (QUINTILES) FOR OWPS
LOW
SUITABILITY
HIGH
SUITABILITY
 Example area needed for a 125 MW OWP
5 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
2 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The objective of this study is to support the identification of suitable areas for OWP development in 
the Republic of Albania (Albania), considering the following three factors:
TECHNICAL 
FEASIBILITY AND 
COSTS
ENVIRONMENTAL 
IMPACT
SOCIAL 
ACCEPTABILITY
The site selection methodology consisted of combining geospatial data organized in a multilayer GIS 
database with a multicriteria analysis.
The basis of this study is the development of verifiable criteria that reflect the goals and priorities for 
ranking OWP sites at a national level.
The key goals of the study are to prioritize potential OWP development areas that:
• Maximize wind energy production (e.g., identify areas with adequate average wind speed)
• Exclude areas with potential use conflicts, such as areas close to coastlines, priority ship 
routes, and offshore structures, to ease the process of obtaining social consent and licenses
to operate
• Minimize construction and operational costs by identifying the most suitable areas, closer to 
ports and existing electrical transmission networks
• Respect a wide range of existing protection measures (e.g., ensure 
that OWPs are far away from areas of natural and environmental 
interest, such as protected international/national areas, MPAs, 
IBAs, and IMMAs).
 NSMMOO CAIDMEIKWI: TIEDRC
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 6
3 STUDY AREA
The suitability assessment was carried out within the area between the coastline and outer boundary 
limit of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ: maximum 200 nautical miles [nm] from the coastline) of 
Albania.
The boundary of the EEZ has been defined using the following guidelines: Flanders Marine Institute 
(2019); Maritime Boundaries Geodatabase: Maritime Boundaries and Exclusive Economic Zones 
(200nm), version 11; and Albania EEZ (http://www.marineregions.org/eezdetails.php?mrgid=5670).
The study area includes a portion of the sea with a maximum distance from the shore of about 90
km to the north and about 40 km to the south. The average longitudinal distance across the sea is 
about 175 km. The map in Figure 2 includes the main ports and airports in the region.
FIGURE 2. MAP OF THE STUDY AREA
7 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
4 EXCLUSION CRITERIA
The evaluation of suitability considered the following exclusion criteria. 
TABLE 2. EXCLUSION CRITERIA
CATEGORY CRITERIA
Environmental Birds
Minimize proximity to bird areas
Coastal environment
Minimize proximity to the coast and shallow water areas
Protected Areas
Minimize proximity to protected areas
Marine mammals
Minimize proximity to protected areas
Social Tourist areas and beaches
Avoid visibility from tourist areas
Historic resource
Minimize proximity to historic resources areas
Competing use of the sea and coastline
Minimize conflicts for the use of the sea
Technical Airports
Minimize proximity to airports
Offshore structures
Avoid interference with existing offshore structures
Sea routes
Avoid interference with major sea routes
High-voltage transmission network
Minimize distance from high-voltage electrical grid
Ports
Minimize distance from major ports
Sea depth
Prefer installation in areas that are not excessively deep
Wind speed
Prefer areas characterized by optimal average wind speed
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 8
5 DATA SOURCES
The desk study is based on information from existing accessible global and local datasets.
In June 2022, the study team accessed data for this study from public and private sources. Table 3, 
below, catalogs all data sources that the team collected and organized into a new geo-database. The 
team preprocessed and re-projected the data with a GIS tool, using precise global location (i.e., a 
common geodetic reference system WGS84 UTM 34N) and reducing the map to the national 
border (EEZ).
TABLE 3. DATA SOURCES
EEZ Boundaries Flanders Marine Institute (2019). Maritime Boundaries Geodatabase: Maritime 
Boundaries and Exclusive Economic Zones (200NM), version 11. 
Wind speed Global Wind Atlas 3.0, a free, web-based application developed, owned and 
operated by the Technical University of Denmark (DTU). The Global Wind 
Atlas 3.0 is released in partnership with the World Bank Group, utilizing data 
provided by Vortex, using funding provided by the Energy Sector Management 
Assistance Program (ESMAP). 
Water depth GEBCO - General Bathymetric Chart of the Ocean GEBCO Compilation 
Group (2020) GEBCO 2020 Grid (doi:10.5285/a29c5465-b138-234d-e053-
6c86abc040b9).
Environmental 
protected areas
WDPA – World Database of Protected Areas, EEA -European Environmental 
Agency IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (year), The World Database on Protected 
Areas (WDPA) [On-line], Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC. Available at: 
www.protectedplanet.net.
Important Bird 
Areas
BirdLife International (2022) Country profile: Albania. Available from 
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/country/albania. Accessed: 2022-06-13
Important Marine 
Mammal Areas
Global Dataset of Important Marine Mammal Areas (IUCN-IMMA). IUCN Joint 
SSC/WCPA Marine Mammal Protected Areas Task Force. Accessible via the 
IMMA e-Atlas https://www.marinemammalhabitat.org/imma-eatlas/
Airport, cities, port Openstreet map /Geofabrik; ASIG Geoportal
Seismic hazards The European Fault-Source Model 2020 (EFSM20), available in the efehr.org 
website [Swiss Seismological Service (SED) at ETH Zurich, in collaboration with 
GEM (Global Earthquake Model Foundation) and EPOS (European Plate 
Observing System)], ref. Danciu L., Nandan S., Reyes C., Basili R., Weatherill G.,
Beauval C., Rovida A., Vilanova S., Sesetyan K., Bard P-Y., Cotton F., Wiemer S., 
Giardini D. (2021) 
Vessel route density EMODnet Human Activities project, www.emodnet-humanactivities.eu, funded 
by the European Commission Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and 
Fisheries. The route density maps are produced and provided to EMODnet by 
the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)
High-voltage substation 
and grid
ASIG Geoportal 
9 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
6 SELECTION PROCESS
Following other recent OWP macro-siting studies (listed in the Bibliography section), the study team 
conducted the process of selecting suitable sites in two steps:
1. Preselection of suitable sites based on preliminary indicators
2. Evaluation of pre-selected sites with multicriteria analysis.
Preselection criteria, indicators, evaluation criteria and site selection ranking were customized based 
on the specific characteristics of the study area, allowing for a country-specific suitability index. This 
enhances the index definition in the study area and brings out the differences between different 
areas.
6.1 CRITERIA FOR PRESELECTION OF SUITABLE SITES
The specific considerations and constraints for appropriate sites were determined according to the 
most recent scientific literature available (see the Bibliography section). A systematic review of the 
scientific literature on siting offshore wind projects using the most recent studies from leading 
countries in northern and southern Europe was conducted. A less-recent study [8] is relevant 
because it contains an interesting methodology that can be applied in the present work. A recent 
study by the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, specifically dedicated to the evaluation of 
future cost trends for the construction of floating offshore wind farms, was also reviewed.
6.1.1 PRESELECTION CRITERIA
The preliminary conditions for the siting of an offshore wind power plant are as follows: 
• Availability of wind resource
• Technical feasibility.
In addition, the siting process must exclude buffer zones for “no-go areas,” such as existing
infrastructure, legally restricted areas, main shipping routes, etc.
In accordance with the literature review, the following preselection criteria and buffer zones (also 
known as “excluded areas”) were adopted: wind speed, bathymetry, and excluded areas.
6.1.1.1 WIND SPEED
Wind speed directly affects energy production per installed MW and consequently the financial 
efficiency of any offshore wind project.
Areas with annual average wind speed > 6.5 meters per second (m/s) at 100 m hub height were 
considered. A limit of 6 m/s (often considered at 10 m instead of at 100 m hub height) is commonly 
considered the minimum to achieve a cost-competitive investment [1,2]. Note that:
• The World Bank Report “Going Global: Expanding Offshore Wind to Emerging Markets” cites a 
minimum of 7 m/s at 100 m hub height [7]
• Most offshore wind power plants in Europe are in areas with annual average wind speed of 
8-9 m/s [1]
• In Asian countries where wind potential is generally lower, wind speed limits are also lower
(4 m/s or less). 
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 10
Local mean wind speed was considered also in the evaluation phase of selected sites to maximize 
power production.
Georeferenced data source: Global Wind Atlas.
6.1.1.2 BATHYMETRY
Water depth significantly affects the feasibility and cost of construction, both for fixed and floating 
wind turbines (also known as “anchoring”).
This study also adopts the following preselection criteria, which are frequently adopted in relevant 
scientific literature:
• Minimum water depth: 30 m (protection of natural values of shallow waters)
• Maximum water depth for bottom-fixed foundations: 60 m
• Maximum water depth for floating foundations: 1,200 m.
The source for these georeferenced data is General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO).
6.1.1.3 EXCLUDED AREAS
In the preselection phase, the following buffer zones were considered as no-go areas for offshore 
wind energy development.
Criteria marked with [E] were also considered in the evaluation phase as criteria to maximize or 
minimize.
• Minimum distance from shoreline: A minimum distance of 10 km from the shore is 
considered to reduce visibility and the potential impact on both coastline activities and the 
coastline environment during construction and operation. Note that other studies propose a 
significantly larger exclusion zone based on the distance from the shore due to visibility 
issues (typically 20-22 km). The potential impacts on the landscape (and consequently on the 
social acceptability and attractiveness of coastal touristic areas) was considered in this study 
by attributing a major penalty in the rankings of areas located less than 30 km from the coast
in the evaluation process. [E]
• Airports: A buffer zone of 5 km around airports in no-go areas (i.e., the buffer zones are 
inside the excluded zone of 10 km from the coast). 
• Environmental protection areas: Based on the World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA), 
this study considered an exclusion zone of 5 km around environmental protection areas (i.e., 
that the 5 km excluded zones, which include MPAs, remain inside the excluded range of 10 
km from the coast). This study also considered distance from environmental protection 
areas in the evaluation phase. [E]
• Important Bird Areas (IBAs): This study considered an exclusion zone of 5 km around IBAs.
Also, in this case, the exclusion zone remains inside the excluded range of 10 km from the 
coast. The study’s evaluation phase also considered the distance from IBAs. [E]
• Bird migration corridors: This study does not evaluate these areas due to a lack of detailed 
information. The exclusion of coastal areas extending 10 km from the shore prevents 
significant interference with migration corridors that follow coastlines. Detailed studies shall 
be executed during a micro-siting, particularly in the case of projects located in the Otranto 
Channel and within a distance of about 5 km around the Capo d'Otranto - Cape of Gjuhëz 
11 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
(on the Karaburun Peninsula) connection line, a potentially important migration corridor for 
birds of prey.
• Important Marine Mammal Areas (IMMAs): The study considered an exclusion zone of 5 km 
around IMMAs. The study also considered the distance from IMMAs in the evaluation phase. 
[E]
• High seismic-hazard zones: The study considered a 3 km buffer zone around earthquake 
fault lines as an exclusion zone.
• High-density shipping routes: High-density shipping routes (defined as areas with more than 
an average of 350 vessel routes per month per square kilometer) were excluded to avoid 
posing risks to shipping navigation, as well as to avoid potential environmental risks caused 
by collision of cargo and tank ships with offshore structures. The study also considered
shipping route density in the evaluation phase. [E]
• Oil and gas offshore structures: The study did not consider these structures due to a lack of 
detailed information. Interference with these structures should be properly investigated 
during micro-siting for specific OWPs.
• Existing or planned leases for offshore oil and gas: The study did not consider these 
elements. Interference with these structures should be properly investigated during micro￾siting for specific OWPs.
• Pipeline and underwater cables: The study considered a buffer zone of 0.5 km on each side 
of subsea pipelines as an excluded area. Due to the lack of detailed information on the route 
of other subsea pipelines and cables, the study only considered the Trans Adriatic Pipeline 
(TAP). The study mapped schematic routes of the main telecom cables for reference only. 
• Existing offshore wind farm (1 km buffer): The study did not consider this possibility, as 
there are no reported offshore wind farms in the study area.
• Marine archaeological sites and shipwrecks (1 km buffer): The study did not consider these 
historical sites due to a lack of detailed information.
• Military zones (0 m): The study did not consider these areas due to a lack of detailed 
information.
• Resulting areas < 10 km2 will be excluded from potentially suitable areas.
• The study evaluated but did not directly exclude the following potentially restricted sea 
areas, considering that it may be better to evaluate optimal distances or shared uses in 
micro-siting and during the authorization procedures.
o Fishing zones: The study evaluated and mapped fishing zones through fishing vessel 
route density (see 6.2 Evaluation Phase).
• Aquaculture: The study did not consider this topic due to a lack of detailed information.
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 12
FIGURE 3. EXCLUDED AREAS – PART ONE 
Wind 100 m hub height (annual mean) < 6.5 
m/s
Sea depth < 30 m 
Shoreline distance < 10 km Vessel routes density> 350 routes/month/km2
13 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
FIGURE 4. EXCLUDED AREAS – PART TWO 
TAP 500 m buffer on both sides Seismic faults buffer 2 km
Natural protected areas/IBAs buffer 5 km IMMAs buffer 5 km 
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 14
6.2 EVALUATION PHASE
6.2.1 INDICATORS
The study considered the following indicators in the evaluation phase: 
TABLE 4. INDICATORS
CATEGORY SPECIFICATIONS OBJECTIVE
Technical Wind speed at 100-meter (m) hub height Maximize
Technical Sea depth (> 30 m) Minimize
Technical / Social Distance from shoreline (> 10 km) Maximize for distance < 30 km; 
Minimize for distance > 30 km
Environmental Distance from MPAs, IBAs, and IMMAs (> 5
km)
Maximize up to 20 km
Technical Distance from high-voltage electricity grid Minimize
Technical Distance from local ports Minimize
Social High-density ship routes Minimize interference
6.2.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA
The study adopted a scoring methodology borrowed from the Orecca 2011 report [8], which the 
study team adapted and modified to consider technological evolution (especially for offshore floating 
technology), the geographical limitations of the study area, and feedback from stakeholders. This 
enhances the index definition in the study area and brings out differences between areas in the study 
region, allowing for a country-specific suitability index. Due to its country-specific nature, the 
suitability index is not directly comparable to suitability values obtained in other parts of the world.
The study applied the evaluation process to potentially suitable areas (see Figure 6 or Appendix C) 
after excluding no-go areas (See Figure 5 or Appendix B).
Each indicator has a defined suitability criterion standardized between 100 (maximum suitability) and 
a minimum score, set for each parameter, that follows expert judgment based on cited literature and 
the specific characteristics of the country. Since the study excluded unsuitable areas before the 
evaluation phase, the minimum scores are always greater than 0 and all assessed areas are potentially 
suitable. The team evaluated parameters with a GIS tool by calculating the score for each parameter 
on a grid of 0.5 x 0.5 km2, internal to the potentially suitable area; each node of the grid, therefore,
represents an area of 0.25 km2. To assign a single overall score to each node of the grid, the team
multiplied the suitability score for each parameter by a weighting factor and summed the parameters 
to give the final ranking of the site. Finally, the study divides potentially suitable area into quintiles to
classify the study area into five suitability classes, from very low to very high.
6.2.3 SITE SELECTION RANKING
15 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
6.2.3.1 WIND SPEED
Wind speed directly affects the power output and, therefore, the economic feasibility of wind power 
plants. The average annual wind speed at 100 m hub height in the potentially suitable area varies
from 6.5 to approximately (~) 8.0 m/s. A score of 100 is assigned to 8 m/s. Considering that the 
energy content of the wind varies with the cube of the wind speed, a decreasing score is assigned 
following a cube power law for the remaining wind speed categories, which were set at an interval of 
0.5 m/s.
TABLE 5. WIND SPEED
ORDER OF 
PREFERENCE WIND SPEED AT 100 M HUB HEIGHT SITE SELECTION RANKING
1 > 8 100
2 7.5 – 8 83
3 7 – 7.5 68
4 6.5 – 7 55
6.2.3.2 SEA DEPTH
Sea depth in the potentially suitable area varies from 30 to ~1,200 m. An increase in depth directly 
affects the cost of construction for each turbine (foundation and mooring). A score of 100 is 
assigned to the 30-60 m range (allowing for a bottom-fixed foundation). Subsequently, a decreasing 
score is assigned at increasing depth range (assuming a floating foundation). The relatively low 
reduction of the score with increasing depth is because the available scientific literature assigns great 
development potential to floating offshore wind technology (using a semi-submersible foundation); 
therefore, a steep reduction of the cost and the technical difficulty of anchoring at depths up to 1250 
m is expected over the next 10 years [2].
TABLE 6. SEA DEPTH
ORDER OF 
PREFERENCE WATER DEPTH RANGE TYPICAL WIND TURBINE 
STRUCTURE
SITE SELECTION 
RANKING
1 30 – 60 m Bottom-fixed 100
2 60 – 200 m Floating 80
3 200 – 500 m Floating 70
5 500 – 750 m Floating 60
6 750 – 1000 m Floating 50
7 1000 – 1250 m Floating 40
6.2.3.3 DISTANCE FROM SHORE 
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 16
Distance from the coastline in the potentially suitable areas ranges from 10 to ~100 km. A score of 
100 is assigned to the 30-40 km range. According to best international practice, this range is the 
optimal distance from shore because it avoids creating a significant visual impact from the coast even 
for larger turbines,while remaining at an acceptable distance for construction, operation, and 
electrical connection. A significantly lower score is assigned to lower distances from shore, 30-20 
km and 20-10 km, to account for significantly increased visual impact, reduced social acceptability, 
potentially increased conflicts in the uses of the area (e.g., fishing, aquaculture, tourism, and 
recreational activities). A less steeply decreasing score is applied to increasing distances from shore, 
considering that all the distances remain in a range of good economic and technical feasibility.
TABLE 7. DISTANCE FROM SHORE
ORDER OF 
PREFERENCE DISTANCE FROM SHORE SITE SELECTION RANKING
1 30 – 40 km 100
2 40 – 60 km 90
3 60 – 80 km 80
4 80 – 100 km 70
5 20 – 30 km 60
6 10 – 20 km 40
6.2.3.4 DISTANCE FROM PORTS
The radial distance from ports in the potentially suitable area varies in the range of 10-115 km. The 
distance from ports affects operation and maintenance costs, as well as safety issues. According to 
best international practice, a distance < 40 km is considered optimal and given a score of 100; the 
score decreases linearly until the distance is > 100 km, which receives a score of 60.
TABLE 8. DISTANCE FROM PORTS
ORDER OF 
PREFERENCE 
DISTANCE FROM PORT SITE SELECTION RANKING 
1 < 40 km 100
2 40 – 60 km 90
3 60 – 80 km 80
4 80 – 100 km 70
5 >100 km 60
6.2.3.5 DISTANCE FROM HIGH-VOLTAGE GRID
17 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
The radial distance from high-voltage transmission lines in the potentially suitable area varies 
between 10 and ~100 km. The distance from the high-voltage grid affects the connection cost and 
the electrical losses. Distances < 40 km have been assigned a score of 100, with the score linearly 
decreasing to 40 at distances > 80-100 km. The evaluation does not consider the residual capacity of 
the existing transmission lines and the voltage in relation to the power of the wind farm.
TABLE 9. DISTANCE FROM HIGH-VOLTAGE GRID
ORDER OF 
PREFERENCE
DISTANCE FROM HIGH VOLTAGE 
ELECTRICITY GRID
SITE SELECTION RANKING
1 < 40 km 100
2 40 – 60 km 80
3 60 – 80 km 60
4 80 – 100 km 40
6.2.3.6 SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION 
The vessel route density in the potentially suitable area varies from 0 to ~ 350 routes/month/km2
(annual mean for all vessels). Interference with high-route densities affects safety and planning 
complexity. The range of route density has been categorized in 4 classes as follows: route densities < 
70 have been assigned a score of 100, which decreases to 40 for a density range of 210-350 
routes/month/km2.
TABLE 10. SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION
ORDER OF PREFERENCE SHIPPING ROUTE DENSITY 
(ROUTES/MONTH PER KM2)
SITE SELECTION RANKING 
1 Lower (< 70) 100
2 Medium (70-140) 80
3 High (140-210) 60
4 Very high (210-350) 40
6.2.3.7 IBAS, IMMAS, AND MPAS
The optimal distance from IBAs, IMMAs, and MPAs is considered to be > 20 km, considering 
disturbance during construction and operation and potential interference with bird migration. Minor 
distances are assigned linear decreasing scores down to 70 at a distance of 5-10 km (distances < 5 
km are considered to be in the excluded areas). The attributed score considered the minimum 
distance from each type of protected area.
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 18
TABLE 11. IBAS, IMMAS, AND MPAS
ORDER OF 
PREFERENCE
MINIMUM DISTANCE 
FROM IBAS, IMMAS, MPAS
SITE SELECTION 
RANKING
1 > 20 km 100
2 15 – 20 km 90
3 10 – 15 km 80
4 5 – 10 km 70
6.2.4 PARAMETER WEIGHTING 
The following table illustrates the weighting factors assigned to each parameter. The weighting 
factors were defined based on their relative importance, and according to information received 
during a consultation process with stakeholders. The suitability ranking of each site is obtained by 
the sum of each parameter multiplied by the relative weighting factor.
TABLE 12. PARAMETER WEIGHTING
PARAMETER WEIGHTING 
FACTOR
COMMENTS 
Wind Speed 0.3 Wind speed is the main parameter influencing the viability of a 
wind power project; therefore, it is given the highest weighting.
Water depth 0.2 Water depth significatively affects technical feasibility and costs.
Location 
(Includes the average of 
distance to shore, distance 
to port, and distance to grid)
0.2 Distance from shore and available infrastructure affect costs of 
installation and operation as well as social acceptability.
Ship route density 0.1 Shared use of the sea may be negotiable.
Environmental 0.2 Minimizing environmental impact is a key aspect in project 
assessment.
Total 1
19 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
The following table shows an example of calculation for the suitability score for a 0.5 x 0.5 km2
suitable area node (non-excluded in the previous step of the process). 
TABLE 13. EXAMPLE SUITABILITY SCORE CALCULATION 
PARAMETER VALUE SITE SELECTION 
RANKING
(A)
WEIGHTING 
FACTOR
(B)
RESULT
(C=A*B)
Wind speed 
(m/s)
7.2 68 0.3 20.4
Water depth 
(m)
80 80 0.2 16.0
Location 
(Distance to shore, distance 
to port, and distance to grid,
km)
15 87 (average of 
60,100,100)
0.2 17.4
Ship route density 
(Routes/month/km2
)
150 60 0.1 6.0
Environmental 
(Minimum distance from 
IBAS, IMMAS, MPAS in km)
18 90 0.2 18.0
Suitability score 77.8
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 20
7 SUITABILITY MAPPING
The exclusion criteria were combined in different layers of a GIS tool to create a map of excluded 
areas. A map of potentially suitable areas was obtained by subtracting the excluded areas from the 
study area.
7.1 MAP OF EXCLUDED AREAS
Figure 5 (see also Appendix B) shows the map of excluded areas resulting from the overlap of all the 
exclusion criteria. To the north, a large, excluded area results from the application of a wind speed 
limit of 6.5 m/s overlapping the other no-go areas. To the south, areas are excluded due to the 
presence of high-density ship routes. Along the coastline, low wind areas partially overlap the 
criterion of minimum distance from the coast.
FIGURE 5. MAP OF EXCLUDED AREAS
NOTE: RED COLORING INDICATES EXCLUDED AREAS.
21 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
7.2 MAP OF POTENTIALLY SUITABLE AREAS
Figure 6 (see also Appendix C) shows the potentially suitable areas resulting from the application of 
the preselection phase. The map shows the average wind speed in the resulting areas. Note that the
higher wind-speed areas occur in the southern portion of the map. 
FIGURE 6. MAP OF POTENTIALLY SUITABLE AREAS
NOTE: LIGHTER TONES (GREEN) INDICATE LOWER WIND SPEEDS AND DARKER TONES (BLUE) INDICATE 
HIGHER WIND SPEEDS.
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 22
7.3 MAP OF SUITABLE SITES
Figure 7 (see also Appendix D) shows the suitability of offshore wind areas. Using the described 
ranking and weighting criteria, the map shows the suitability subdivided in quintiles from very low 
(red) to very high (blue).
FIGURE 7. SUITABILITY CLASSES (QUINTILES) FOR OFFSHORE 
WIND PROJECTS
LOW 
SUITABILITY
HIGH
SUITABILITY
23 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
7.4 MAP OF WIND SPEED IN MOST SUITABLE SITES
Figure 8 (see also Appendix E) shows the wind-speed classification of areas of very high suitability. 
The windiest areas (around 7.5 m/s) are shown in the southern portion of the map, about 30-40 km
off the Karaburun Peninsula. Comparison with the map in Figure 9 shows that the windiest areas are 
also located in a very deep area (900-1,000 m). The ultimate suitability of these areas will have to be 
evaluated according to the development of floating offshore technology.
FIGURE 8. MAP OF WIND SPEED IN MOST SUITABLE SITES
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 24
7.5 MAP OF BATHYMETRY IN MOST SUITABLE SITES
Figure 9 (see also Appendix F) shows the bathymetry classification of areas of very high suitability. 
The shallower areas (from 50 to 250 m deep) are located in the northern portion, where the 
average wind speed is approximately 6.5-6.7 m/s, which is currently at the lower limit of wind speed 
suitability. 
FIGURE 9. MAP OF BATHYMETRY IN MOST SUITABLE SITES
25 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
8 STUDY LIMITATIONS
This study is a preliminary high-level analysis aimed at providing support to help identify areas off 
the coast of Albania that are best suited to offshore wind development. C4G intends this study to 
inform further stages of OWP development by serving as an initial reference point for authorities, 
developers, and any stakeholders, thereby enabling a more confident and efficient decision-making 
process. C4G does not intend for parties to use this study, in whole or in part, for other contexts 
or purposes.
This study adopted the methodology and criteria of the 
most authoritative information sources available as of 
the date of publication.
The methodology and criteria were customized based 
on the specific characteristics of the study area,
allowing for a country-specific suitability index that is 
not intended for direct comparison with suitability 
values obtained in other world regions.
Moreover, since OWP technology is constantly 
evolving, this study makes assumptions relating to
future technical feasibility issues that developers and 
stakeholders should duly verify to inform the design of
specific offshore wind farms.
The analysis is based on existing and public databases available at the time of data collection (June
2022) and information received during a consultation process with stakeholders. The completeness 
and accuracy of the study relies on the quality of the collected data. The study team assumed that 
the information in the collected data is correct and does not accept responsibility for incomplete or 
inaccurate external data. As this study’s assessments are based on data and conditions from 
published sources, neither USAID or the C4G implementing partners represent, warrant, or 
guarantee that the actual conditions of an area will conform to the assessments contained in this 
study.
This study does not include a complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that 
may exist at the sites. Thus, this study is intended neither as a feasibility assessment of a specific 
wind farm project nor for any impact assessment purposes. 
Any use that a third party makes of this document, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based 
on it, is the responsibility of such third party. C4G accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, 
suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document.
Given the scope of this study, conditions may exist that this study could not detect. Variations in 
conditions may occur, and the study’s data collection and analysis may not have identified or taken 
into account all special conditions of sites that may exist. Accordingly, additional studies and actions 
may be necessary.
This study adopted the 
methodology and criteria of 
the most authoritative 
information sources available 
as of the date of publication.
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 26
9 BIBLIOGRAPHY
This section includes the reference bibliography for the study methodology.
TABLE 14. BIBLIOGRAPHY 
YEAR AREA TYPE DOCUMENT
1 2022 Northwest 
Turkey
Systematic review 
and criteria for 
NW Turkey
Caceoğlu E.; Yildiz H.K.; Oğuz, E.; Huvaj, N. & 
Guerrero, J. M. (2022). Offshore wind power 
plant site selection using Analytical Hierarchy 
Process for Northwest Turkey. Ocean 
Engineering, 252, [111178]. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.111178
2 2020 California
Assessment of 
floating offshore 
wind energy coast 
Philipp B.; Musial W.; Duffy P.; Cooperman A.; 
Shields M.; Heimiller D. and Optis M. 2020. The 
Cost of Floating Offshore Wind Energy in 
California Between 2019 and 2032. Golden, CO: 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 
NREL/TP-5000-77384. 
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/77384.pdf
3 2020 General Systematic review 
of selection criteria
Spyridonidou, S.; Vagiona, D.G. Systematic Review 
of Site-Selection Processes in Onshore and 
Offshore Wind Energy 
Research. Energies 2020, 13, 5906. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/en13225906
4 2019
North Sea B, 
Dk, F, D, NL, 
N, Scotland
Review of North 
Sea regions criteria
SEANSE Planning Criteria for Offshore Wind 
Energy North Sea region overview 2019
5 2018 Greece, South 
Aegean
Main criteria -
recent
Vagiona, D.G.; Kamilakis, M. Sustainable Site 
Selection for Offshore Wind Farms in the South 
Aegean—Greece. Sustainability 2018, 10, 749. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030749
6 2018 Baltic Sea Simple step by step 
criteria
Baltic Lines - A practical guide to the designation 
of energy infrastructures in maritime spatial 
planning - 2018 Interreg EU https://vasab.org/wp￾content/uploads/2019/01/BalticLINes_Guidance_E
nergy_final.pdf
7 2017 Baltic sea Complex multi 
criteria
Chaouachi, A.; Covrig, C.F.; Ardelean, M. Multi￾criteria selection of offshore wind farms: Case 
study for the Baltic States. Energy Policy 2017, 
103, 179-192
8 2011
EU -
ORECCA 
Combined 
Wind-Wave 
criteria
Complete list of 
criteria
Murphy, J.; Lynch, K.; Serri, L.; Airdoldi, D.; Lopes, 
M. Site Selection Analysis for Offshore Combined 
Resource Projects in Europe. Report of the Off￾Shore Renewable Energy Conversion Platforms—
Coordination Action (ORECCA) Project 2011. 
http://www.orecca.eu/documents
27 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
APPENDIX A
WORKBOOK 
ALBANIAN OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT – SITING 
EVALUATION
Indicators and Exclusion Criteria
1. Average wind speed at 100 m hub height
2. Bathymetry
3. Shoreline distance
4. Seismic faults
5. Protected areas
6. Route density (all vessel)
7. Fishing route density
8. Distance from ports
9. Submarine cables and pipelines
10. Distance from power transmission lines
11. Distance from IBAs
12. Distance from IMMAs
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 28
WIND SPEED
The data represent the average annual wind speed at 100 m hub height (Source: Global Wind Atlas). 
The study considered wind speed suitability from a minimum of 6.5 m/s. 
The northern part of the map shows a wind speed < 7 m/s, just above the minimum limit. The windiest
areas (with an average wind speed between 7 and 8.5 m/s) are in the Otranto Channel and in the 
proximity of the Karaburun Peninsula: i.e., in areas with the highest sea depth, high natural and tourist 
values, possible interference with migratory bird routes, and crossed by high-density naval routes.
29 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
BATHYMETRY
The data represent the sea depth (m) (Source: GEBCO - General Bathymetric Chart of the Ocean). 
Sea depth suitability is < 60 m for a bottom-fixed foundation and is considered to reach 1,250 m with 
developments in floating foundations in the near future. The study excluded areas with depth < 30 m 
for the protection of natural values of shallow waters. 
The seabed slope is modest in the north, where a depth of 200 m is reached at a distance of circa 40 
km from the coast; while it is very steep in the Otranto Channel, where the 500 m sea depth is reached 
at a distance < 10 km from the coastline, and 1,000 m sea depth at a distance around 20 km. 
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 30
DISTANCE FROM SHORELINE
The data represent the distance from the Albanian shoreline (km).
International best practices recommend a minimum distance of 10 km from the shoreline to reduce 
visibility and the potential impact on coastline activities and the environment. The optimal distance is 
set in the range 30-40 km, where visibility from the cost and interference with other uses are usually 
very low. The maximum distance from the coast to the far border of the EEZ reaches around 90 km 
in the north and around 40 km in the south. 
31 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
SEISMIC FAULTS 
The data represent seismic fault line in the study area (source: European Fault-Source Model 2020). 
International best practices recommend an excluded area of a 2 km buffer from fault lines. 
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 32
PROTECTED AREAS
The data set includes areas from the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), a global 
database of marine and terrestrial protected areas that is updated monthly. The data are categorized 
based on International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) criteria. 
International best practices recommends a conservative no-go area from the footprint of each 
protected area to a buffer of 5 km; with an equally conservative optimal distance > 20 km. 
.
33 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
VESSEL ROUTE DENSITY
The map shows the vessel route density (routes/month per km2, for all vessels). Source: 
www.emodnet-humanactivities.eu; maps provided by European Maritime Safety Agency – (EMSA).
The study excluded areas with route density > 350 from suitability. The team considered an optimal 
route density to be < 70 routes/month/km2. An area with major interference with high route 
densities is in the Otranto Channel. 
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 34
FISHING ROUTE DENSITY
The map shows the fishing vessel route density (routes/month/km2). Source: www.emodnet￾humanactivities.eu; maps provided by European Maritime Safety Agency – (EMSA). The map is 
provided only for information, considering that the optimal distance from an OWP project or shared 
use can be better evaluated in micro-siting and during the authorization procedure. 
The major fishing route densities are in the north between Durres and Velipoje and along the 400 m 
sea depth isobath, around 30-50 km from the coast. 
35 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
DISTANCE FROM PORTS
The map shows the radial distance from Albanian ports. 
The maximum distance is about 115 km. The study considered a distance < 40 km optimal for 
operation and maintenance activities.
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 36
SUBMARINE CABLES AND PIPELINES
The map shows the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) and the schematic routes of telecom cables (for 
information). The study considered an excluded buffer zone of 500 m on each side of the TAP. 
It was not possible to accurately reconstruct the route of the main subsea cables and pipelines due 
to a limited availability of information. This information will have to be evaluated in the micro￾localization phase.
37 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
DISTANCE FROM POWER TRANSMISSION LINES
The map shows the radial distance from the high-voltage power transmission lines located closest to 
the coast. The team extrapolated the layout of the HV transmission lines from Albanian ASIG 
geoportal information. The radial distance varies from 0-100 km. The distance from the high-voltage 
grid affects connection costs and electrical losses. 
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 38
IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS (IBAS) 
The map shows the location and buffer distances from IBAs (Source BirdLife International 2022). 
The major IBAs are located along the southern coastline. The team considered them no-go areas, 
with a buffer zone of 5 km around IBAs and an optimal distance > 20 km. 
39 | USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY USAID.GOV
IMPORTANT MARINE MAMMAL AREAS
The map shows the location and buffer distances from the only IMMA marginally overlapping with 
the study area.
The team considered this IMMA a no-go area with a buffer zone of 5 km around the IMMA and an 
optimal distance > 20 km. 
USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 40
APPENDIX B
NO-GO AREAS MAP

USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 42
APPENDIX C
SUITABILITY MAP

USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 44
APPENDIX D
SUITABILITY CLASSES MAP

USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 46
APPENDIX E
SUITABLE AREAS WIND SPEED MAP

USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 48
APPENDIX F
SUITABLE AREAS BATHYMETRY MAP

USAID.GOV USAID C4G ALBANIA OFFSHORE WIND SITING STUDY | 50
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR 
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20523 
Tel: (202) 712-0000 
Fax: (202) 216-3524 
www.usaid.gov
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED FOR REVIEW BY THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL 
DEVELOPMENT. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS PUBLICATION DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE 
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. IF YOU HAVE 
ANY DIFFICULTIES ACCESSING THIS DOCUMENT, PLEASE CONTACT ACCESSIBILITY@RTI.ORG.