the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 16 Sep 2026
A multiform energy transition: typifying wind and solar energy-land systems in Portugal
Abstract. The expansion of solar and wind power creates complex "energy-land systems" defined by interactions between governance, land use, and energy production. While critical for the energy transition, utility-scale projects often face social contestation rooted in the socio-ecological marginalization of rural areas. Addressing these challenges requires a granular, nationwide understanding of renewable energy systems and their local contexts. Focusing on Portugal, we categorized 760 renewable energy projects and used multivariate cluster analysis to identify 18 energy-land system types. Deployment contexts were analysed using indicators of socio-ecological marginalization, including land degradation, energy poverty, income levels, demographic dynamics, and land prices. Our findings reveal that geography and scale are primary drivers of energy-land system diversity. Wind systems in the North favour co-location (e.g., pasture, beekeeping) and co-governance (e.g., protected areas, commons), while solar systems in the South are distinguished by production levels and externality mitigation.
Furthermore, we found that large-scale projects are frequently located in highly marginalized regions and incorporate more socio-ecological measures. Conversely, smaller utility-scale projects tend to occupy more productive, less marginalized land. These patterns illustrate trade-offs between deployment strategies—such as few large projects versus several small ones—with direct implications for energy policies. To our knowledge, this study presents the first nationwide analysis of energy-land systems, providing a replicable approach for system characterization. By adopting a land-system perspective, this research supports planning decisions aimed at creating multifunctional, equitable systems that better align rural needs with the requirements of the energy transition across various scales.
- Preprint
(2059 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(868 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 28 Oct 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on ls-2026-5', M Bürgi, 16 Sep 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ana Buchadas, 06 Oct 2026
reply
Please see the attached responses to your comments and those of the remaining reviewers.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ana Buchadas, 06 Oct 2026
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on ls-2026-5', Martin Rudbeck Jepsen, 16 Sep 2026
reply
Thanks for allowing me the chance to read this interesting study on energy land systems. My background is in land system science and geography, and I am not an expert on renewable energy systems and their implementation, so this study was enlightening.
The study is well written and easy to read and certainly focuses on a land use that could be expected to increase substantially in Portugal, the EU and beoynd.
I think the mansucript could benefit from clarification of key concepts:
What do you exactly understand by socio-ecological marginalization?
What are decentralized/centralized energy solutions?
The introduction and discussion touches on equity and justice related to type and location of ELS. While it is clear that the local population may be burdened by the presence of eg. PVs, it is less clear how the authors analyze the concepts of equity and justice in a socio-ecological setting? Who and what benefits from ELS, who are burdened? How are ecosystems/habitats/non-human species impacted?
The fourth research question (how to ELS’ relate to geographies of social and ecological marginalization) could benefit from clarification: what are these geographies theoretically and specifically in a Portuguese context? What do you mean be ‘relate to’?
Finally, there seems to be an underlying assumption that rural exodus is negative (line 77, lines 90-92). I would like to see some arguments for this assumtion, preferably for the combined socio-ecological system.
Specific comments: ll. 156 – 159: What did you code? Which information? How was coding structured? Is the codebook and the coded documents made available for transparency?
Table 1:
I don’t see variables related to marginalized land, land degradation, community socio-economy (e.g. income etc. as a measure of marginalization)?
Could you add data sources for your variables?
Should the classification ‘degree’ be ‘ordinal’?
Figure 1: I see consistency in the subcategories for wind and solar, and partly in decentralized. By why does ‘ground-mounted’ become a subcategory? It is not a variable in table 1, and a very different interpretation of what constitutes a subcategory compared to the other subcategories.
Lines 227-234: This is interesting information – but I don’t see it reflected in Figure 1? Could you align the text to the figure?
Lines 256-261: Here, you describe the subcategory Solar utility-scale/small scale, with 100 observations included. However, the text is about a single example. Could you describe what generally characterises the subcategory (besides lacking an EIA)?
Figure 2: the font sizes for legends and axes are too small to read on an A4 print. Please improve readability. Also, the abbreviations used for the clusters should be spelled out in the caption so the reader knows what is what.
Table 2: It is difficult for me to read what the difference between cluster 1 and cluster 2 is. Which socio-ecological measures are present in 1 and not in 2? If that differs, what is the general number in 1 and 2? Some transparency would help.
Figures 3 and 4: these are nice plots, but as a geographer I can’t help thinking that a map of the cluster types would be a nice contribution too!
Lines 376-381: Here you discuss pros and cons of wind energy land systems. Could you perhaps try to reach a synthesis – how does e.g. protected/communal lands and high energy poverty/low productivity landscapes helps us understand the location of ELS better? What are the potential impacts on the local ecology of the ELS (there must be something you have coded in the EIAs)?
Best wishes,
Martin Rudbeck JepsenCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/ls-2026-5-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ana Buchadas, 06 Oct 2026
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://ls.copernicus.org/preprints/ls-2026-5/ls-2026-5-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ana Buchadas, 06 Oct 2026
reply
-
RC3: 'Comment on ls-2026-5', P. Blechinger, 22 Sep 2026
reply
see pdf for detailed comments
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Ana Buchadas, 06 Oct 2026
reply
Please see the attached responses to your comments and those of the remaining reviewers.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Ana Buchadas, 06 Oct 2026
reply
The authors present a study on the development of renewable energy project in Portugal. It provides a rich and largely well-presented picture of the spatial-temporal development. It is indeed quite revealing to see how in different periods different project types were especially popular and what the reasons for the changes in the preferred project types were.
As such, it is largely descriptive, which is not a criticism, but rather an encouragement not to try to make something else out of the material. Already the very first sentence in the abstract, but also throughout the text (see my comments in the pdf file), I find statements or claims which would require a much more analytical approach. Thus, tuning down this wording to be closer to what the study is indeed able to deliver, would in my view be advisable.
Of course, such an analysis is heavily restricted by data availability. However, some core aspects of renewable energy production are missing and are not even addressed as missing. What I foremost miss is an adequate inclusion of the question of developers and investors: who is finally financially profiting from these projects? I assume that information on this would also be available – why has it not been integrated in the analysis? Neglecting these dimensions comes across as rather naïve, given the well documented power constellations.
Information is provided on the placement of the projects in protected areas – but here, the discussion is developed in a way that largely ignores the reasons why these areas have been designated as protected (such as ecological value, biodiversity, rare species etc). Rather, protected area designation is foremost treated as limiting the potential for land use changes, which lowers the price of the land. Of course, this is very true, but there is a reason for that, i.e., the ecological value of this area. The obvious, but not addressed question is, what these projects (including infrastructure necessary to build and maintain the plant, but also power lines, etc.) do to the landscape and biodiversity, looking into the question if these effects are in line with the protection status and aims.
The question of just transformation is addressed, but in a rather superficial way, without e.g. mentioning the different dimensions of environmental justice, which could also have lead to further differentiations in the coding of the material.
Thus, the data presented is indeed revealing interesting pattern. I overall suggest to (I) more adequately address the financial, ecological and justice aspects of renewable energy projects, (II) add some information necessary to document the analysis better (e.g. missing information on the variables used as “socio-ecological marginalization variables”: what does the “renovation index” stand for?) and (III) clarify some of the rather vague or even confusing statements on relevance of the study.
Comments on all these aspects can be found directly in the pdf attached.