@Rodread I had already discussed the land use issue, taking account of your observations.
My model is not yet refined and mainly apply to utility-scale rigid crosswind kites which fly at a low elevation angle, a large part of the tether being close to the ground, this because they accumulate dangers such as the high speed of both aircraft and tether, high mass, high kinetic energy. So in a preliminary approach secondary use is not possible or not easy on more than a perimeter were the tether is the radius, so much for land use that space use.
The footprint is another thing I think and concerns the area of the installations on the ground. For all AWES said area is very small. But for utility-scale rigid crosswind kites, land use prevails. For some other AWES, comprising rotary stationary systems, land (and space) use could be lower as the flight path is restrained and the rigid elements (for Daisy) can be smaller, so less dangerous.
The ideal is that the land use could be closer to the footprint. It would be more possible with stationary or slow AWES flying at high elevation angle. In kite festival we can see that the land use is not much larger than the footprint for even huge static kites which are very close each other and are only separated by their respective wing span. Similarly land (sea) use of crosswind kites can be reduced towards their moving footprint when unities go in the same direction, as for kite surfing competitions, or perhaps AWES using a track with two elongate parts as for NTS video at 1:22 or Kitefarms patent published.