Exploring the Links Between Clean Energies and Community Actions in Remote Areas: A Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Here are some comments and questions about this article:

1. The keyword selection in Section 2.1.1 (related to community actions and remote areas) has ambiguity that may affect literature retrieval accuracy. For example, the term "social" is overly broad and often used in non-community action contexts, while "communit*" may be conflated with general "collectivity" rather than targeted community-led energy initiatives. Additionally, "remote" is occasionally associated with "remote sensing" instead of "geographically marginal areas." It is suggested to refine the keyword list by adding more precise terms like "participatory," "citizen engagement," and "mountain" to better capture the core research scope.
2. The literature retrieval only relies on the Scopus database, which may exclude valuable grey literature (e.g., EU policy implementation reports, local energy community practice manuals, and industry case studies). These grey materials could provide practical insights into energy poverty alleviation through energy communities. It is recommended to supplement retrieval from platforms like EU Open Data Portal or regional energy agency databases to enrich the empirical basis.
3. In the analysis of the 67 core literatures (Section 3.3), the specific types of renewable energy (e.g., photovoltaic, biomass, wind energy) adopted in the studied energy community cases are not clarified. Since different renewable energy types have distinct adaptability to remote areas (e.g., biomass is suitable for agricultural regions, while wind energy fits coastal areas), it is suggested to add a sub-analysis of renewable energy type distribution and its matching with regional resource endowments to enhance the practical guidance of the research.
4. Only 2 of the 268 EU-case literatures directly address energy poverty, but the article does not explore the potential reasons for this gap (e.g., policy focus deviation, data availability constraints, or research paradigm limitations). It is recommended to add a discussion on the factors leading to the weak link between energy community research and energy poverty, which could help identify targeted directions for future research and policy alignment.
5. The weight assignment process for literature relevance (Section 2.2.1) relies on subjective judgment of the research team, lacking an intercoder reliability test (e.g., independent assignment by multiple researchers and consistency verification). To improve the objectivity of the screening results, it is suggested to describe the implementation of such a reliability test or provide a clear coding manual to reduce subjective bias.
6. In the geographical distribution analysis of cases (Section 3.2), the screening criterion is based on the authors’ affiliation countries rather than the actual location of the case studies, which may exclude literatures where non-EU authors study EU energy community cases. It is recommended to adjust the screening logic to prioritize the "case location" (explicitly stated in titles/abstracts) over "author affiliation" to avoid missing relevant studies.
7. Although the article proposes that "spatial planning can act as an interdisciplinary bridge" (Section 5.2), it does not provide specific operational paths (e.g., which spatial planning tools—such as GIS-based multi-criteria planning or participatory spatial mapping—are most effective, or examples of successful policy integration). Supplementing practical cases of spatial planning supporting remote area energy communities (e.g., Italian inner-city energy planning) would strengthen the feasibility of this proposition.
8. In Figures 9 and 10 (types of links between domains), the specific themes of the dominant weight combinations (e.g., the "1,0,1" combination: clean energy production + remote areas) are not elaborated in the text. For instance, what proportion of these literatures focus on technical feasibility vs. resource assessment? Adding a brief thematic breakdown of the main weight combinations would help readers better understand the research focus of each link type.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Attached you can find our replies to the comments.

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort dedicated to the evaluation of our work and for the constructive comments and suggestions, which have greatly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

Sincerely,

The authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1:  

The abstract should summarize key findings more explicitly, emphasizing what is new or unique about this review. Consider highlighting the most significant insight (lack of implementation studies or weak policy integration).

Comment 2:  

The introduction is rich in background detail but could be streamlined. Much of the EU policy context could be summarized in fewer sentences.

Strengthen the problem statement: What exact gap in the literature does this review fill compared with prior systematic reviews on energy communities or rural energy transitions?

Comment 3:  

The PRISMA process is well explained. However:

Add a summary table showing the number of records at each screening step (identification → screening → eligibility → inclusion).

Discuss potential bias from using only Scopus. Could some relevant grey literature or journals be missing?

The weighting system (0–1 scale) is innovative but subjective. Provide a brief explanation of how inter-rater reliability or consensus was ensured among authors.

Clarify whether the bibliometric analysis was considered as a complementary validation.

Comment 4:  

The descriptive statistics are comprehensive but overly detailed. Focus on the most meaningful patterns: The dominance of Italy, Spain, and Poland, and the low number of implementation-oriented and energy-poverty-focused studies.

Include a summary table of gaps and research needs by domain or country for future research.

Comment 5:  

The Discussion is thorough but primarily descriptive. Strengthen it by:

Interpreting why community action remains underrepresented in the literature.

Connecting results to energy justice and socio-technical transition theories.

Reflecting critically on methodological trends.

Expanding on the role of spatial planning as a bridging discipline, giving concrete examples of planning mechanisms or governance models.

Comment 6:  

The conclusions align with the findings but should move beyond summarization:

Emphasize policy implications (need for EU programs integrating spatial planning and community energy projects).

Add future research directions, including how to improve participatory methods, expand geographic coverage, and integrate mixed methods.

Comment 7:  

Ensure consistent terminology for energy poverty, remote areas, and community actions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Attached you can find our replies to the comments.

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort dedicated to the evaluation of our work and for the constructive comments and suggestions, which have greatly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

Sincerely,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this article, the authors reported on a systematic literature review on the PRISMA model aimed at identifying case studies of experiences, approaches and suggestions at the European level to build a knowledge base. However, these are some points that the authors could improve upon:

1. The justification for the study needs to be revised and clarified.
2. In the introduction section "Nevertheless, according to Eurostat, 29 
   in 2023 [3], an average of 10.6% of the European population was in a condition of energy poverty (EP) [4]. For some Mediterranean countries (Portugal, Spain, Bulgaria, Turkey) and Lithuania, this percentage exceeded 19% and reached about 21% [3]. This situation has worsened since 2020 [5]." If the situation has worsen since 2020, then it should not have been an average 10.6% while in you stated it has exceeded 21%? Kindly rephrase.
3. In Figure 7, The legends should be more legible., or use another color code format.
4. The caption of Table 1 does not seem to be correct. It is written as " Table 1. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited."
5. Page 17 line 541, "Finally, categorising the relevant links (sections 2.2.2 and 3.3) is the real contribution because it allows a more explicit understanding of who did what, how, where and when. Such knowledge can be valuable in the planning discipline,". A result showing this needs to be included.
6. Check spelling mistakes, like page line 565 the word "communit" seems to be wrong.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Attached you can find our replies to the comments.

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort dedicated to the evaluation of our work and for the constructive comments and suggestions, which have greatly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

Sincerely,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf