Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123235

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Understanding upscaling and stagnation of farm-based biogas

production in Sweden through transitional and farming logics
Johan Niskanen *, Dick Magnusson
€ping University, Department of Thematic Studies e Technology and Social Change, Sweden
Linko

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Biogas has recently attracted increased attention as an energy carrier in the Swedish agricultural sector.
Received 4 November 2019 After a few years of growth, the agricultural biogas sector has now plateaued and few new plants have
Received in revised form been established in recent years. This paper aims to understand the upscaling and stagnation of farm-
29 June 2020
based biogas in Sweden using interviews with key stakeholders and document studies. Through a
Accepted 7 July 2020
combination of concepts used in socio-technical transition and large technical systems literature, the
Available online 19 August 2020
paper takes stock of national developments with a particular focus on three case regions. With an
Handling editor: Yutao Wang appreciation of regional contexts and different actor logics driving biogas development, the results
present different growth patterns, stagnation factors and possible pathways for future upscaling. The
Keywords: paper concludes with a discussion on the future of the Swedish agricultural biogas sector.
Biogas © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Transition
Upscaling
Stagnation
Sweden

1. Introduction
In recent years, biogas has attracted increased attention as an
energy carrier in the agricultural sector as part of a wider "green
transition". Biogas can be produced through anaerobic digestion of
various materials, such as food residues and biowaste, agricultural
raw materials and agricultural waste (Weiland, 2010). Biogas is
considered at an international level to have significant potential for
reducing GHG emissions, as it can be used to replace fossil fuels for
power and heat production as well as vehicle fuels (Bo €rjesson and
Mattiasson, 2008), but also as it lies in the intersection between
two critical challenges globally; the increasing amount of organic
wastes and the importance of reducing GHG emissions (IEA, 2020).
IEA (2020) further argue that with a full utilization of the potential
from biogas and biomethane, using all kinds of feedstocks (crop
residues, animal manure, municipal wastewater, and forestry res-
idues), biogas could cover up to 20 percent of the global gas de-
mand. In the literature, the potential of biogas from various sources
has been studied in many countries, for example Brazil (Salomon
€ping University, Department of Thematic Studies e
* Corresponding author. Linko
€ ping, Sweden.
Technology and Social Change, 581 83, Linko
E-mail addresses: johan.niskanen@liu.se, johan_niskanen@hotmail.com
(J. Niskanen).
and Lora, 2009), China (Chen et al., 2010), India (Venkateswara
et al., 2010), Iran (Noorollahi et al., 2015), and United States (Shen
et al., 2015). The potential for farm-based biogas, based on agri-
cultural waste, has been especially identified as beneficial from an
environmental perspective as it makes use of residual materials for
energy production (Karlsson et al., 2018). Swedish farm-scale
biogas is a versatile product suitable for vehicle fuel upgrading,
heat production or combined heat and power (Svensson et al.,
2005). The sector has grown in Sweden, from the first projects in
the early 2000s, to 50 farm-based plants spread across Sweden
today (although not all of them are currently actively running their
biogas facilities), producing 56 GWh of biogas in 2018 (SEA, 2019),
with a sector potential of more than 10 TWh (Linne  et al., 2008).
This is also a sector with extensive cooperation and system inte-
gration between actors in terms of knowledge exchange, resource
flows and interconnection of distribution systems (Hagman et al.,
2018).
Despite a general increase in biogas production (although this
has been stable since 2015), there have been signs that Swedish
farm-based production is reaching a plateau. The number of plants
and production volumes have remained at similar levels since 2012,
albeit with an increase between 2017 and 2018, contrasting with
the rapid growth in previous years and the strong development of
biogas production in general in Sweden during this period. While

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123235
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 J. Niskanen, D. Magnusson / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123235
total production increased by 30 percent between 2012 and 2018,
farm-based biogas increased at a slower pace and has stagnated at
around two percent of total production in 2018 (SEA, 2019).
The literature on sustainability transitions in energy systems (cf.
Kemp et al., 1998; Geels, 2002; Smith and Raven, 2012; Ko € hler et al.,
2019) has featured a significant focus on upscaling renewable en-
ergy innovations and understanding the dynamics in these pro-
cesses. Naber et al. (2017) have identified a typology of upscaling
patterns: growth, replication, accumulation, and transformation,
which we use to analyse farm-based biogas development. At the
same time, a more specific focus on the dynamics behind the lack of
upscaling could add to this literature. For example, Negro and
colleagues (2012) identified eight systemic problems preventing
renewable energy from scaling up, identifying a lack of stable in-
stitutions, both soft and strong, to support renewable energy as the
missing feature in most cases, while Ruggiero et al. (2018) found, in
the case of community energy in Finland, that a lack of shared
vision and national support and a lack of intermediary organiza-
tions were among the main barriers for upscaling. As a complement
to the transition literature, we apply the concept of stagnation to
address the plateauing of biogas production, based on Kaijser’s
(1994, 2004) and Sovacool et al.’s (2018) use of the concept.
The aim of this paper is to analyse farm-based biogas develop-
ment in Sweden, and to analyse the slower development of recent
years. The focus of this paper is thus on understanding stagnation,
by analysing the initial upscaling of farm-based biogas, and on
examining which factors influenced this stagnation. We do so via a
national overview, but with a focus on case studies in three
different regions of producers, in order to understand the rationale
behind initial investments, stagnation and the prospects for future
upscaling or rescaling. Three research questions guide the analysis:
RQ1: How has farm-based biogas developed in Sweden?
RQ2: Which different pathways for upscaling can be identified
and how can these be understood?
RQ 3: Which different pathways for future upscaling or re-
scaling are relevant?
In the next section, we present previous biogas research focused
on regional collaborations. We then present our theoretical
framework in which we combine concepts used in the field of
socio-technical transitions with ideas from large technical systems
literature. We then move on to an empirical analysis of farm-based
biogas production in Sweden, with a focus on growth and stagna-
tion in three case regions. Finally, we conclude with a discussion on
patterns of biogas development as understood through the logics of
key actors. We discuss how matching these logics might contribute
to future farm-based biogas production and transitional objectives.
2. Previous research
Substantial research has been carried out on biogas and farm-
based biogas (Svensson et al., 2005; Lantz, 2013; Lo € nnqvist et al.,
2013; Martin, 2015; Olsson and Fallde, 2015). In this section, we
will focus on international biogas research, collaborations, and
regional preconditions. Due to specific Swedish conditions
(regarding e.g., subsidies, regulations, regional and municipal au-
tonomy, etcetera) the paper focuses on mainly, but not exclusively,
comparisons with earlier Swedish and Scandinavian studies.
Using biogas for energy production has a long history, as biogas
has been used for heating bath water and using anaerobic digestion
of manure from animals to produce a flammable gas more than
2000 years ago. However, it was mainly in the latter half of the
19000 s that the development took off in a systematic manner, as
China built anaerobic digesters in rural areas for cooking and
lighting in the 19500 s, and in 2012 there were 45 million similar
plants, although not all of them in operation and India has had a
similar development. The trend in recent years, which is true for
most countries, has been a focus on larger systems with improved
productivity. In the US, the first investments in manure-based
systems took off in the late 1970s based on federal subsidies, but
the development has been slow due to investment challenges,
maintenance problems, and lack of economic viability, although the
number of farm-based plants increased from 25 in 2000 to 176 in
2011 (Guo et al., 2015).
An estimated 70 percent of the production of biogas in the world
today are based on crops residues and animal manure (IEA, 2020).
The most common feedstocks in the agricultural sector globally are
residues from harvesting wheat, maize, rice, grains, and sugar beet
and sugar cane, soybean etcetera. Manure from cattle, pigs, poultry,
and sheep are also common. China is the world’s largest individual
biogas producer, with two main agricultural subsectors:
Household-biogas digestion for farmers and centralized biogas
plants. Almost 40 million household-scale digesters (with a yearly
biogas output of 13 billion m3) and 72 000 large-, medium-scaled
and small-scaled plants use agricultural feedstock (with a yearly
biogas output of 1 billion m3) (Chen et al., 2012). The European
Union is the world second agricultural biogas leader, with most
production taking place in Germany’s over 8000 high tech agri-
cultural plants (Achinas et al., 2017). Behind Germany is UK, France,
Italy, and the Netherlands (Hijazi et al., 2016). The total installed
capacity in the EU is 10,532 MW (with 7000 MW installed in the
agricultural sector) (EBA, 2018).
The US and India are also investing in agricultural biogas and are
expected to be future major biogas producers (IEA, 2020). So far in
the US, biogas digestion has mainly been deployed at larger farms
(>500 cows) and research suggest that small scale agricultural
biogas is not economically viable due to high capital investment
(Klavon et al., 2013). In 2018, large dairies and livestock operations
in the United States produced a total of 270 million kWh of elec-
tricity from biogas (EIA, 2019). Like China, India is an historical
pioneer of house-hold biogas plants and its biogas market is
dominated by household agricultural plants and larger industrial
plants. The total biogas production in India is 2 billion m3 per year
but the potential in the agricultural sector is substantially larger
(Mittal et al., 2018).
In general, the rise of agricultural biogas production globally has
been driven by policy support and feedstock availability (IEA,
2020). Common barriers to biogas development concerns high
initial investment and high transaction costs, competition from
other fuels and from alternative technologies, lack of technical
services, regulatory and institutional barriers, limited urban
municipal capabilities, lack of coordination between different
stakeholders, availability of feedstock, lack of policy and technology
awareness, etcetera (Mittal et al., 2018). In sum, cross-national
research on the social organization of agricultural biogas produc-
tion concerns social and cultural barriers and biases and highlight
that the institutionalization of social practices is key for the
development of local small-scale biogas systems (Bluemling et al.,
2013). In the next subsections we focus on the specific institu-
tional environment of importance for Scandinavian and Swedish
agricultural biogas development.
2.1. Biogas collaboration
Thirty years of biogas production in the Danish agricultural
sector show that the introduction of technology can take decades
and that technological performance and social support fluctuate
over time. Accommodating this requires a strategy with distributed
support from a social network of various actors improving
 J. Niskanen, D. Magnusson / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123235
technological and economic performance, as well as engaging with
regulatory frameworks (Raven and Gregersen, 2007). Broad col-
laborations involving public and private actors is a facilitating factor
on both strategic and practical levels.
Biogas systems involve many actors working in dynamic coop-
eration: producers, distributors, biogas customers and customers of
biogas by-products such as digestates or biofertilizers (Lybæk et al.,
2014). Clear long-term institutional rules and policies are deemed
to play a key role in establishing such biogas systems (Ersson et al.,
2015). In a farm-based biogas context, broad actor engagement in
the business initiation and ideation phases have a positive impact
on the commercial viability of biogas producing farm cooperatives,
especially if business models are re-oriented towards sustainability
(Karlsson et al., 2018).
Multi-sectoral biogas production can increase methane yield,
gas volume and nutrient content in the digestate through the
addition of alternative substrates (Ahlberg-Eliasson et al., 2017).
There are also other benefits of collaboration: biogas production in
biorefineries can contribute increased social and economic value,
e.g. by creating job opportunities and cleaner processes, and biogas
from the agricultural sector makes bioethanol and biodiesel pro-
duction more versatile and resilient through waste valorisation and
the inclusion of new products (Hagman et al., 2018).
Recently, studies have been focusing on the supply chain of
biogas. Yazan et al. (2018) studied the potential for manure-based
biogas networks in the Netherlands, based on the background of
underutilised potential of biogas production. The strong agricul-
tural sector could be an important actor in the renewable energy
transition, but the lack of cooperation in the supply chain, from
animal farmers to biogas producers, means a lack of optimization.
As animal farmers have high costs for disposing manure and as
biogas producers may sell heat and electricity, there are benefits for
both parties. Lauer et al. (2018) found that the cooperation between
farmers in Idaho, US, to invest and operate an anaerobic-digestion
plant could be beneficial for smaller farms. Based on the back-
ground that farms are increasing in size to be economically feasible,
biogas cooperation could potentially have impacts even beyond
increased renewable energy production.
2.2. Regional preconditions
The production, distribution and use of biogas are dependent on
regional prerequisites (Larsson et al., 2016). A network-based
regional business model can deliver advantages as it brings
together diverse actors and addresses social and environmental
problems experienced by members. This might lead to positive
synergistic outcomes and financial viability at firm and industry
scales (Karlsson et al., 2017).
Farmers and farmer organizations play key roles in local system
development from niche to mature technology as providers of
substrates and handlers of anaerobic digestion by-products (Fallde
and Eklund, 2015). Dedicated public actors, especially as facilitators
in early project stages, are of key importance for regional biogas
system development. Private technology system builders and social
network builders play important roles in maintaining local systems
and expanding biogas products to new markets.
Regional policy institutions matter for cross-sectoral collabora-
tion (Hjalmarsson, 2015; Martin and Coenen, 2015). Collaboration
regarding institutions and technologies links the waste, agriculture,
energy, and food sectors via the value added by biogas production.
Regional collaborations can also be facilitated through national
climate investment subsidies, and through pre-existing sources of
technological and policy-making know-how (Martin and Martin,
2017).
3
3. Theory: upscaling and stagnation
In recent years, a great deal of research on innovation and socio-
technical system development has been carried out in the socio-
technical transitions field (cf. Geels, 2002; Geels and Schot, 2010;
Markard et al., 2012; Smith and Raven, 2012), such as strategic
niche management and the multilevel perspective. According to
this literature, transformative change towards sustainability is a
process that unfolds gradually over several decades, involving
technical and non-technical elements.
The multi-level perspective has been an important step in
conceptualizing societal transformations based on a socio-technical
perspective. Its main claim is that changes at three different levels
of structuration interact to produce fundamental transformations:
socio-technical niches, regimes and landscapes (Geels, 2002).
Niches are protected spaces in which inventions evolve over time
among a few actors, often within universities or R&D departments
at companies. The regime level comprises the dominant configu-
ration of technical artefacts, networks, users, market structure,
institutions, regulations, and knowledge. These are stable config-
urations, making them difficult to change and disrupt. Thus, the
success of innovative niches depends on opportunities to enter the
stable regime level. The landscape level comprises large-scale,
slowly changing external factors, such as climate change and eco-
nomic trends, which influence regime actors but are beyond the
control of single actor groups.
One important aspect in this literature is the notion of ‘upscal-
ing’. Naber and colleagues argue that “upscaling of experiments is
important: when activities increase, experiments can add to an
emerging field at a ‘global’ niche level” (2017, p. 344). Comparisons
between and aggregations of lessons learned from local experi-
ments lead to more articulated, stable, and specific rules at global
level for niche development, and this increases the potential for the
niche to affect the current regime.
Naber et al. (2017) have identified a typology of upscaling pat-
terns: growth, replication, accumulation, and transformation (See
Table 1).
Growth refers to when an experiment attracts more partici-
pating actors or market demand increases. This growth can be in
terms of size or activity. Replication occurs when the main concept
of the experiment is used in other contexts, and knowledge from
the initial experiments is thus transferred. Accumulation refers to
how experiments are linked together with other experiments with
a similar purpose. Intermediary organizations play a crucial role in
this, as they facilitate interaction between experiments, and the
lessons learned can thus be compared and aggregated. Finally,
transformation means that experiments have gained such trans-
formative power that they shape wider institutional change within
the regime (Naber et al., 2017).
Building social networks is especially important for the growth
and replication of niches, as it attracts a range of actors and might
increase resource availability and the potential for innovation and
learning (Naber et al., 2017). Articulating expectations is especially
important for replication, as the involved partners need to under-
stand and respect each other’s interests. Learning processes are
important for transformation and replication as they allow costs to
reduced and are important for feeding into new experiments as
these build on knowledge from previous experiments. Further,
replication is not a linear process and entire projects are seldom
replicated, but parts (e.g. technologies, routines, institutions) of a
project circulate between multiple contexts.
We highlight that farm-based biogas systems are socio-
technical, due to their reliance on human and non-human negoti-
ations and the fact that their growth and stagnation are determined
as much by policy, social and institutional factors as technical
4 J. Niskanen, D. Magnusson / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123235

Table 1
Patterns of upscaling (Table is modified from Naber et al., 2017, p. 344/352).

Pattern of upscaling Definition Graphic description

Growth The experiment continues and more actors participate, or the scale at which technologies are used increases

Replication The main concept of the experiment is replicated in other locations or contexts

Accumulation Experiments are linked to other initiatives

Transformation The experiment shapes wider institutional change in the regime selection environment

factors. We therefore integrate concepts from the large technical
systems (LTS) literature. LTSs are socio-technical, large, coordinated
and varied, and mature systems are obdurate in their nature,
making them resistant to change (Hughes, 1983; Kaijser, 1994,
2004).
Upscaling of biogas have historically in Scandinavia been
dependent on support from broad local and regional networks
working together to improve technological, economic, organisa-
tional, and regulatory frameworks (Raven and Gregersen, 2007;
Ersson et al., 2015). In this development, accumulation have been
key: being able to off-set biogas by-products such as digestates and
biofertilizers to other sectors have been especially important
(Lybæk et al., 2014; Ahlberg-Eliasson et al., 2017; Hagman et al.,
2018). Multi-sectorial biogas cooperation has been replicated
throughout Scandinavia through the support of both regional and
national policy institutions and climate investment subsidies
(Hjalmarsson, 2015; Martin and Coenen, 2015; Martin and Martin,
2017).
In the LTS field, Kaijser (1994, 2004) has argued that a system
that has passed the phases of invention and growth may enter a
stage of stabilisation or go into decline. One example of a system
entering a stable level is the Swedish electricity system, as demand
has remained stable since the 1980s and has not started to decline
(Ho€gselius and Kaijser, 2007). An example of a declining system is
the gas market in the early 1900s, when electricity entered the
market and out-competed gas in all appliance areas. The gas system
entered a declining phase, which was accelerated by the pessi-
mistic views of involved actors who directed their investments and
optimism elsewhere (Kaijser, 1994, 2004). Kaijser (1994) also ar-
gues that systems might stagnate due to saturation, for example
road traffic.
Sovacool et al. (2018) have furthered the discussion on mature
systems. They argue that stagnation and decline occur when
growth slows down and systems become displaced or substituted
by other competing solutions. Decline can be absolute or relative to
competing LTSs. They define stagnation as an actual loss of service
(quality or volume) or a shrinking of geographic scale.
Kaijser (1994) makes a distinction between strong and weak
coupled technical systems. The focus is on the technical connection,
and grid-based systems, like energy- and communication systems.
The components in the strong coupled systems need to be stand-
ardised and adjusted to the other components, and a specific set of
system variables, such as frequency, current, or width of tracks, set
the prerequisites of dimension and system design. The lack of
buffer in the system leads to need for coordination and system
control, often from one actor, which sets the organisation structure.
They also require large initial investments. In the weak coupled
systems, like the non-grid-based transport or energy systems, there
are more buffers and lesser need for centralised coordination. The
main point is that the technical design sets particular prerequisites
for institutional control, which regulators and other system actors
need to adopt to.
We are interested in understanding how the farm-based biogas
sector has grown and developed from individual plants, in some
cases becoming interconnected with larger socio-technical con-
figurations. We apply the concepts relating to upscaling, based on
the typology by Naber et al. (2017) and the concept of stagnation
(Kaijser, 1994, 2004; Sovacool et al., 2018), to unpack some of the
dynamics in this process.
 J. Niskanen, D. Magnusson / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123235 5

4. Material and methods growth and stagnation as well as insights into possible future
developments.
Our unit of analysis is biogas technologies at Swedish farms, and
empirical data sources include interviews with key actors and 4.1. Case descriptions
biogas project documentation from public authorities and interest
organizations. The methodology has five key steps: 1) national 4.1.1. North
mapping of farm-based biogas initiatives through documents, 2) In the northern region, nine farm-based biogas plants produce
identification of relevant farmers and biogas regions through doc- biogas from on-site manure (from animals at the farm), with a few
uments, 3) interviews with key actors in selected regions, 4) anal- plants utilizing whey permeate from a local dairy. All plants pro-
ysis of interviews to identify key characteristics of relevance to the duce heat and most produce electricity. The plants were built be-
upscaling and stagnation of biogas technologies in the agricultural tween 2010 and 2016. The annual energy production ranges
sector, and 5) a comparison of the studied regions and a presen- between 300 and 350 MWh. Collaboration is mainly characterized
tation of the main insights. by farmers having built the biogas plants themselves with the
At national level, we have mapped and analysed farm-based guidance of a local technology consultant and local subcontractors.
biogas through official documents from public authorities and in- The regional innovation office, a public housing company and a
terest organizations (the Federation of Swedish Farmers, Swedish public energy utility collaborate with biogas farmers.
Biogas, the Rural Economy and Agricultural Societies) that have
initiated projects with a focus on farm-based biogas. This entailed a 4.1.2. West
document survey and a web survey to identify Swedish farmers In the western region, four farm-based biogas plants are con-
who produce biogas as a first step, and business collaborations nected via a pipeline system to a facility where the gas is upgraded
between farmers and other actors as second step. This mapping to vehicle gas quality and then delivered to a local gas station.
was conducted in order to understand farm-based biogas growth Production started in early 2013 and delivers gas to fuel 150 cars
nationally over time and the documents were made out of reports, and 45 buses and trucks. The plants are owned by an economic
newspaper items, websites of relevant actors (for a detailed list of association of 25 farmers. The collaboration also includes a biogas
the included documents, see Appendix A). From this mapping we production company which is responsible for upgrading and selling
identified the regions with the most initiatives. We then identified the gas, and a company responsible for the pipeline infrastructure
biogas farms that had been producing for a few years as these farms which is owned by local municipalities and the biogas production
have had time to reflect on the development process. Based on this,
we selected three regions for further analysis and identified key
actors and farmers for qualitative interviews. This part of the
analysis was important in order to understand the development in
general, in order identify a possible stagnation phase.
Telephone interviews were conducted with fourteen key actors
in total, divided almost evenly between the three regions. The in-
terviewees were farmers, local industry representatives, repre-
sentatives from sub-national public authorities and interest
organizations (see Appendix B for an overview of interviewees).
The interview questions concerned technologies, regulations,
business opportunities, key actors and local situatedness. The main
purpose of the interviews was to gain an understanding of the
historical development of local biogas networks, current collabo-
ration, and future potential for upscaling. By asking farmers how
their biogas business have developed historically and what they
thought about future development as well as asking about the
development and prospects of regional farm-based biogas sectors it
was possible to tie their answers to our theoretical framework on
upscaling and stagnation (Naber et al., 2017). The interviews were
transcribed, and key findings were characterized according to these
purposes. Finally, we analysed the findings against our conceptual
framework.
Conditions were such that the pros of telephone interviews
outweighed the cons. Telephone interviews can be a suitable
methodological approach where time and distance limitations exist
(David and Sutton, 2016). Telephone interviews differ from face-to-
face interviews since body language and subtle signs disappear in
the communication (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009). It is thus
important that the researcher is aware of and alert to the flow of the
telephone interview, so that the interviewee is given enough time
to respond and trust can be built (David and Sutton, 2016). To
minimize mistakes due to the methodology and to allow for the
interviewees to present elaborate answers, semi-structured in-
terviews were prepared in advance.
Interviews and document studies have provided us with thick
description of the actors and collaborations in the studied regions,
and this has enabled us to present an in-depth analysis of biogas Fig. 1. Farm-based biogas sites in Sweden. 1) North 2) West 3) South.
6 J. Niskanen, D. Magnusson / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123235

company. A final key component is a local energy utility that acts as (SBA, 2020). The subsidy covers up to 50 percent of new in-
the main buyer of biogas. vestments and farmers can also receive economic support if they
are building a biogas upgrading facility or a facility to handle
4.1.3. South digestion residues.
The southern region is characterized by early technology All 50 farms are members of the National Federation of Swedish
dissemination but a low level of collaboration between farms. Eight Farmers, which supports them through initiatives regarding energy
biogas plants have been identified in the region, connected by a savings, technology procurement guidance, etc. Other organiza-
regional provider of biogas technologies, their geographical close- tions, such as the nationwide Rural Economy and Agricultural So-
ness, and previous failed attempts at closer collaboration. This is cieties, have carried out specific projects focusing on farm-based
the most diverse of the studied cases: the majority of farms produce biogas production, supported by the Swedish Board of Agriculture.
heat and electricity for their own use from a variety of substrates, Based on the official statistics from the Swedish Energy Agency,
and some farmers have developed smaller collaborations with the the total production of biogas has increased steadily since 2009 (see
immediate local society. The region covers the northern Scania Table 2). Production from farm-based plants has increased in a
region and parts of the adjacent Halland County. While Scania have similar fashion, at least up until 2013; after that, the increase has
been comparatively successful in terms of biogas production, this been modest, or even stagnated.
part of the region has seen less deployment. The first farm-based biogas plant began production in 2003 at
Hagavik in Scania, but it was after 2007 that the development really
5. Results took off. Between 2008 and 2010 thirteen plants were built, and
between 2011 and 2013 twenty-five more were established. How-
We argue that farm-based biogas production has gone through ever, the five years thereafter saw the trend reversing, with only
two main phases in Sweden: growth and plateauing, with potential five being built. In the rest of this section we look at the processes
for re-scaling. In this analysis, we understand upscaling as the behind these data, focusing on growth, stagnation, and potential
comparatively fast uptake and use of farm-based biogas technolo- upscaling in three case regions.
gies within a region. Plateauing means the slowing down or limited Swedish biogas is mainly produced by different types of waste
spread of biogas technologies, and re-scaling means that growth and residual products. The main substrates in 2018 were sewage
could pick up again through old or new means. In this section, these sludge (34 percent), manure (22 percent), food waste (12 percent)
‘phases’ are analysed in the three case regions using Naber et al’s and waste from the food industry & slaughterhouses (11 percent)
(2017) concepts of growth, replication, accumulation and trans- (SEA, 2019). Manure is the most common substrate in the Swedish
formation, together with Kaijser’s (1994, 2004) and Sovacool et al’s farm-based biogas sector. Some biogas farmers are however also
(2018) use of the stagnation concept. To provide a background and involved in local co-digestion plants making use of a variety of
context, farm-based biogas is first presented from a national substrates.
perspective.
5.2. Farm-based biogas at regional level: upscaling
5.1. Farm-based biogas in Sweden
5.2.1. Upscaling through growth and replication
We conducted a mapping of existing farm-based biogas plants In the densely forested northern region, wood burning has
in Sweden and identified around 50 in total, with 44 in operation as historically been a common practice for generating heat for homes
of 2018 (see Fig. 1). and farms. With wood becoming more expensive due to higher
In a national context, the farm-based sector is quite small and capital costs, biogas has increasingly become an interesting fuel
makes up only two percent of the total energy production, while it solution (Interview 1). The first biogas production plant in the re-
should be noted that the total production decreased slightly be- gion was built by a technology consultant at his family farm in
tween 2017 and 2018 (SEA, 2019). The farms are located all over 2009, based on experience from larger Swedish and German farms.
Sweden, although a few counties stand out: Va €stra Go€taland with This entailed downscaling of biogas plant technologies to suit
fourteen, and Kalmar, Halland, Skåne and Ja €mtland with seven mid-sized farms with fewer animals with lesser amounts of sub-
each. strates. The technology consultant was able to achieve this using
Most of the 50 farms have received economic subsidies and local subcontractors and simple tools and materials found in the
orchestration support from intermediaries during the initial pha- local hardware store (Interview 1). This solution with smaller
ses: Swedish farmers can receive financial support from the technologies was met with interest from similar sized farms, and
Swedish Board of Agriculture for plants, pipelines, culverts, and was the seed for a regional biogas system in which the adapted
consultancy services for the production of fertilizer-based biogas technology was disseminated through farmers buying biogas con-
sultancy services: “I do not sell any products, but a service: here’s how
to build a biogas plant using common technical components” (Inter-
Table 2 view 1). The consultant was paid for his competence, but the
Swedish biogas production e total and farm-based. Note: The decrease in 2014 is technology spread through tinkering and making use of existing
due to a reclassification of the larger farms (SEA, 2018, 2019).
tools, machines, and components at the farms (Interview 1; Inter-
Year Total prod. (GWh) Farm prod. (GWh) No. of farms view 2; Interview 5).
2009 1363 18 8 The technology consultant and the Federation of Swedish
2010 1387 16 9 Farmers brought together interested local farmers, supporting the
2011 1473 20 18 roll-out of nine farm-based plants during the period 2010e2016. A
2012 1589 47 24
key success component was proximity: several mid-sized farms
2013 1686 77 39
2014 1784 44 37 were located within a 60-km radius, and these farmers already
2015 1947 50 40 knew each other (Interview 3).
2016 2018 49 41 For Naber et al, replication mean that “the main concept of the
2017 2068 50 43 experiment is replicated in other locations or contexts” and growth
2018 2044 56 44
means that “… more actors participate, or the scale at which
 J. Niskanen, D. Magnusson / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123235
technologies are used increases” (2017, p. 314). Replication and
growth in the northern region were visibly shaped by what we refer
to as ‘farmer’s logic’, meaning that upscaling was driven by prag-
matic use of existing farm equipment, technological adaptation to
mid-sized farms and a general do-it-yourself spirit.
5.2.2. Upscaling through accumulation: the pipeline solution
As in the northern region, business upscaling in the Western
region partly involved the development of smaller technologies
based on German originals. However, it was mainly a matter of
accumulation (Naber et al., 2017), linking farm-based biogas pro-
duction to other industrial sectors. Since 2008, an economic asso-
ciation of four biogas plants and 25 farmers has produced and
distributed 6000 m3 of gas per day for vehicle fuels via a network of
pipelines in the Biogas Brålanda project (Interview 6).
The project connects biogas farmers with the local municipality
as the buyer, the local energy utility as the producer and the public
as end-customers. Biogas production, distribution and use are
highly optimized and integrated, showing a strong system
coupling, both technically and organizationally (Kaijser, 1994). The
Trollha€ttan Energi utility had the competence to run a larger biogas
operation: “our organization is experienced since we have worked
with biogas since 1996” (Interview 7). Experienced strategic actors
within both the biogas sector and collaborating sectors also actively
positioned biogas production within a transitional logic, with the
aim of developing a regional fossil-free transportation regime
through local ‘green’ businesses.
The existence of several biogas plants within close proximity
offered good conditions to build a joint biogas upgrading plant
(Interview 8). However, not all farmers in the biogas system pro-
duce biogas; some members contribute manure as a substrate via
the economic association while others process residues from the
production process (Interview 9).
Subsidies for reducing methane emissions and investment
support for the construction of biogas plants from the Swedish
Board of Agriculture were important (Interview 9). In addition, SEK
15 million from the Swedish EPA’s Climate Investment Programme
was invested in developing gas pipelines, and subsidies were
received for a fuelling station.
Upscaling biogas resulted in regional collaboration across sec-
tors and new business opportunities for the farmers. They saved
money and solved practical problems at their farms (e.g. reduced
methane and increased nutritive value of the soil). The Biogas
Brålanda project thereby successfully combined aspects of a tran-
sitional logic with a more practical farmer’s logic.
5.2.3. Upscaling through technological dissemination
Farm-based biogas production in the south has seen growth
(Naber et al., 2017) through the dissemination of biogas technolo-
gies. Since 2010, ten farm-based biogas plants have been active in
the area. As in the other regions, the downscaling of technological
size was important. The plants produce heat and electricity for use
on-site or in buildings close to the farms (Interview 11). Processing
manure and finding new local and sustainable energy solutions
have been the main drivers for farmers to take up biogas produc-
tion (Interview 12).
Early adoption has made the region a pioneer in farm-based
biogas technologies, and many Swedish biogas consultants and
advisors have developed their competence at southern farms
(Interview 12). One of Sweden’s largest producers of technologies
for farm-based biogas is active in the region. This proximity was
significant to the buyers: “We are located 15 km from this company
which makes both construction and service much easier, so it was
proximity rather than price that mattered for us [when investing in a
plant]” (Interview 11).
7
The Federation of Swedish Farmers was initially involved in the
procurement process, connecting the biogas technology company
with local farmers. Despite this, growth in the region has been fairly
dependent on orchestration by intermediaries and regional poli-
cymakers. Collaboration between biogas farmers is less visible than
among their northern and western counterparts: “Initially we
planned to work closely together, but in the end we only bought
technology from the same producer” (Interview 12). The growth
pattern in the south is thereby illustrative of how farm-based
biogas technologies can spread without collaborative business
models or strong social networks. In economic terms, this means
that the farmers rely heavily on external funding as “they cover their
losses only through subsidies” (Interview 13).
5.3. Farm-based biogas at regional level: stagnation
5.3.1. Weak system couplings
Since 2018, the expansion of farm-based biogas has stagnated in
the north. This is partly due to demographic and geographic con-
ditions: in the sparsely populated north there are few farms, which
are often small and far between. The collaboration potential with
other sectors is thus limited: “This is not a place where you can
deliver biogas through pipelines as the distances are too long”
(Interview 4).
The technology consultant has however initiated collaboration
with eight of the farms, the local public energy utility and the local
public housing company, providing homes with electricity from
biogas (Interview 4). This linking to other sectors was strongly
supported by actors working with the development of regional
business. Represented by the County Administrative Board and the
Regional Council, this collaboration was seen through a transitional
logic: biogas collaboration presented opportunities for institutional
change, facilitating a competitive green region (Interview 2).
However, this coupling between sectors is not a key business
component for the farmers, the utility, or the housing company.
About 80 percent of the biogas are used on the farms, and only the
remaining 20 percent is sold. This means that the biggest ‘profits’
for the farmers are savings, as biogas replaces existing power
sources at the farm. For the public housing company, the collabo-
ration mainly represents symbolic support for the regional business
community: “This is sponsorship. But it is not profitable for us, as we
pay over 40 o €re (0,4 SEK) per kWh on top of the electricity price”
(Interview 4).
Cooperation has thereby been limited by the willingness of the
housing company to pay extra for electricity. This is a weak foun-
dation on which to build a business collaboration, and the housing
company has no plans to expand its initiative (Interview 4). The
system coupling (Kaijser, 1994) between the farms and other
regional sectors has thus mostly been symbolic, not technical, and
based on informal exchanges, and is therefore fairly weak. Neither
the regional energy unity nor the local housing company in the
north are dependent on biogas deliveries to run their operations,
nor are their operations organizationally or technologically well-
integrated with the operations of the biogas farmers, and thus
the important system couplings are weak. This has resulted in
stagnation (Kaijser, 1994, 2004; Sovacool et al., 2018) and makes
cross-sector collaboration e or what Naber et al. (2017) call accu-
mulation e an unlikely pattern for further upscaling.
5.3.2. System saturation
The closely coupled biogas system has been a success in the
western region, but the pipeline solution also comes with its
problems. The close collaboration and high technical optimization
mean that the pipeline has ‘natural’ limits for expansion, i.e. the
system became saturated (Kaijser, 1994). Consequently, there has
8 J. Niskanen, D. Magnusson / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123235
been a stagnation in biogas production in later years due to the
production system working at full or near to full capacity: “We are
evaluating right now whether we can distribute more gas without a
drop in pressure” (Interview 7).
Efficiency measures could increase production, but overall, the
physical infrastructure of the system needs to expand (Interview 7).
In the end, more biogas is also needed for the system to grow, and
this would mean either more substrates being delivered to existing
plants or more farmers building new plants. However, the oppor-
tunities for expansion are partly limited by proximity factors, i.e.
the local cattle density needs to be high enough for centralized
biogas production units to be profitable.
The strong narrative surrounding centralized biogas production
might also have been an unexpected factor contributing to stag-
nation: the dominance of the pipeline solution in the region has
shaped the perception of what farm-based biogas entails, i.e. is a
large-scale product that is most valuable as a vehicle fuel, which in
turn requires larger farms. To exemplify this:
“I do not contribute substrate for biogas production since all four
large plants are too far away from my farm … For me to have a
biogas plant of my own I would need to increase my number of
cows five-fold” (Interview 8).
For farmers, the success of the pipeline might have contributed
to making small-scale biogas more marginalized in the region. This
is supported in academic literature as transition scholars suggest
that narratives are important facilitators, especially for the pro-
motion of niche solutions (Ruggiero et al., 2018; Smith and Raven,
2012). We suggest that this local discourse favouring large pipe
solutions is one stagnation factor inhibiting growth among some
farmers in the region.
5.3.3. A lack of political orchestration and policy incentives
Investments in small-scale plants have stagnated in the south,
and a lack of long-term political strategies and policy incentives is
suggested as a reason for this by regional actors: “Future in-
vestments depend on what role the politicians decide biogas will play
in the Swedish energy system…” (Interview 13). This concern is
echoed by farmers:
“Unlike politicians, we can’t work with four-year plans. This type of
thing is a 25-year investment … if you listen to companies in other
sectors, they say you shouldn’t be involved in businesses that are
dependent on temporary policies, so maybe we shouldn’t produce
biogas at all” (Interview 11).
Here, Germany and Denmark are promoted as pioneers pre-
senting long-term policies in favour of biogas investment for
farmers.
Farmers also state that local collaboration projects face barriers
due to national regulations:
“Regulations set by the Swedish Board of Agriculture are stopping
us. We want to use food waste from local schools, but that would
require hygienization of the waste which we cannot afford”
(Interview 11).
With the right subsidies and regulations in place, local collab-
orations could build on the involvement of local actors such as
school kitchens and hospital kitchens. Accumulation (Naber et al.,
2017) must not start with the farms, but could be driven by de-
mand from external sectors (which can be facilitated with the right
policies).
Stagnation is perceived to be due to a lack of national subsidies
for infrastructure investments, a lack of policy incentives regarding
cooperation, and a benevolent regulatory environment. However, it
should also be mentioned that after the initial technology
dissemination phase there has been no social network or business
collaboration to guide new biogas farmers in the region (Interview
12; Interview 14).
5.4. Farm-based biogas at regional level: future potential
5.4.1. Hygienization and downscaling of technologies
We identified two main visions for future farm-based biogas
production in the north: First, more collaboration between farmers
and other sectors. Second, a further downscaling of existing biogas
production technologies in order to disseminate the technology to
even smaller farms. Using Naber et al’s (2017) conceptualization,
the first vision follows a pattern of accumulation, meaning that
development occurs through linking projects with a similar pur-
pose, while the second follows a pattern of replication, meaning
development through the transfer and use of a concept in different
places.
From the perspective of regional development actors, biogas
needs to play a role in linking different green industrial projects.
The County Administrative Board and the Regional Council have
opted for more regional collaboration through an organization for
biogas business development (Biogas J€ amtland), bringing together
regional authorities, farmers, and local municipal companies. From
their transitional perspective, biogas plays a regional role in
developing sustainable business collaborations, through which
farmers receive subsidies for their contribution to achieving envi-
ronmental objectives. The Swedish Board of Agriculture subsidies
biogas development at the farm level, at the same time regional
actors expect farmers that receive subsidies to participate in
regional sustainability initiatives (i.e., regional biogas develop-
ment). Farmers do however prioritize their investments based on
the economy of their whole farm, not in order to reach regional
sustainability objectives. This means that they install biogas plants
since they are economically beneficial through subsidies and makes
the farm more efficient through better handling of manure. This
(often-unspoken) collaboration model is thus inefficient and
highlights how the logics of transitional and farming logics does not
necessarily work towards the same objective.
One main goal for regional policy makers has been to encourage
contacts between farmers and actors with substrates to facilitate
the development of a hygienization unit so farmers can upgrade
their biogas to vehicle fuel quality (Interview 2). So far, hygieniza-
tion plant investments have been hindered by the lack of a stable
business partner for providing alternative substrates (Interview 5).
Farmers have shown some support for a hygienization plant
(Interview 1; Interview 3), but in general, northern farmers envi-
sion a dissemination of biogas technologies to smaller farms,
requiring a downscaling of technologies in order to suit the con-
ditions of such farms. However, many smaller farmers in the region
have not dared to invest in biogas plants:
“As a farmer, investing in biogas also means a commitment to keep
60 plus animals for ten years. With drought and low milk prices …
there are very few farmers who have the economic conditions to
take a chance on new technologies (Interview 1).
This is especially important since national payments for agri-
cultural support have been delayed for several years (Interview 3).
Most farmers do not have the financial margins to both invest in
biogas and wait for financial support.
For farmers, a priority is to make biogas production work both
 J. Niskanen, D. Magnusson / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123235
economically and practically on their farms (Interview 1; Interview
3; Interview 5). From this perspective, the expansion of current
production is less important. This suggests that future upscaling
might present tensions between a transitional logic and a farmer’s
logic.
5.4.2. Business upscaling and downscaling of technologies
Most interviewees in the western region expect the current
saturation (Kaijser, 1994) to be temporary, as there are several
different plans for expanding the pipeline system. A permit has
already been issued for a new large plant: “There are many animal
farms in the region which could deliver manure to a larger facility”
(Interview 6), and there are possibilities to make current produc-
tion more efficient: “Technological bottlenecks such as compressors
and coolers need to be replaced, which would increase production at
the farms by 20 percent” (Interview 7).
A key aspect of scaling up in the future is to bring in more
substrate, mainly from food and slaughter waste (Interview 10).
However, such an expansion would take time due to the strong
existing couplings within the system and would require the con-
struction of a hygienization facility (Interview 9). Here, the farmers
could benefit from their collaboration with Trollha €ttan Energi since
the public utility has access to the municipal waste management
system. Regional biogas strategists also consider changes in fuel
preferences to be a potential driver for demand: “New gas stations
are being developed for cars, and if these are open to the public the
demand could rise really fast. Also, more buses and heavy vehicles
could add to that demand” (Interview 10).
While the pipeline solution dominates the mental landscape
among farmers in the region, there is still potential for the growth
of small-scale plants for on-farm use, as in the two other regions.
This would require downscaling of technologies adapted to farms
with fewer animals (Interview 7). The diversity of large-scale,
central production on the one hand and small-scale, distributed
production on the other presents regional potential for the farmers,
while new technologies, fuels and behaviours are considered
drivers from a more transitional perspective.
5.4.3. Regional integration and internationalization
One pathway to future upscaling in the south is turning to
vehicle gas production. The western region’s pipeline model is
presented as an ideal by regional biogas advocates (Interview 13).
One farmer highlighted that politicians could facilitate such a
model:
“Our local politicians could have procured public transport … Their
busses could run on biogas produced in the municipality … But
maybe it has been much easier to connect to E.ON’s existing pipes
and use natural gas [than to buy locally produced biogas]”
(Interview 12).
There is a risk that natural gas could outcompete local biogas
production in the region, especially if biogas production stagnates
Table 3
Upscaling, stagnation and the potential re-scaling of farm-based biogas production in three Swedish regions.
Northern region
Patterns of upscaling (Naber et al., Replication and accumulation
2017)
Main stagnation factors (Kaijser, Weak technological couplings
1994, 2004; Sovacool et al.,
2018).
Main potential of future upscaling Investments in hygienization plant and/
or further downscaling of technologies
9
and natural gas increases its integration within regional systems
(Sovacool et al., 2018). While it could be an opportunity for biogas
actors to collaborate with natural gas distributors, it is a risk for
comparatively small farm businesses to integrate their gas distri-
bution with much larger international natural gas companies. A
collaboration would likely entail a contestation and a competition
over the control and function over the gas distribution system. This
could, for example lead to the exclusion of biogas over time as
natural gas prices drop.
Vehicle gas production would require investments in upgrading
facilities, which in turn would require deeper regional collaboration
(Interview 14). One problem with this pathway is that the farmers
who would need to invest in the upgrading facilities have had bad
experiences of biogas so far: “29 out of 30 farms were in the red
before they got government subsidies” (Interview 13).
As in the other studied regions, turning to small-scale biogas
production technologies represents a potential future upscaling
pathway. While the technology consultant in the north is
mentioned as having succeeded with developing smaller sized
plants, smaller plants are also in demand in the south (Interview
12). Future biogas investments could potentially come from busi-
nesses aimed at the niche market of smaller farms, and foreign
companies are expanding into southern Sweden and selling small-
scale container-based biogas plants (Interview 13). If biogas can be
integrated into everyday farm practices (e.g. via regional collabo-
ration or small-scale plants), production could increase. Regional
vehicle gas collaboration supported by public procurement and/or
increased activities by foreign companies will shape future
upscaling in the south.
6. Discussion and conclusion
This paper has analysed the development of farm-based biogas
in Sweden nationally and in three case regions. The case studies are
summarized in Table 3. In this section, we discuss upscaling and
stagnation and conclude with some thoughts on the future devel-
opment of farm-based biogas production.
Previous research suggest that Sweden is a leader “in planning,
implementing, and sustaining long-term low carbon energy tran-
sitions” (Urban and Nordensva €rd, 2018, p. 14), and in order to
maintain this position and reduce carbon emissions biogas could
play a more prominent role as an energy carrier in the agricultural
sector. In contrast with other biofuels, using manure already found
at farms to produce biogas lessens the extraction of previous nat-
ural areas as it means limited new land development. This is sug-
gested to be an efficient climate mitigation technique (Pan et al.,
2019) and as concluded by Lauer et al. (2018) and Yazan et al.
(2018), there are opportunities for synergies if the value-chain is
better interconnected. However, for farm-based biogas to play this
role as part of a wider "green transition" in Sweden its historical,
current, and future development pathways need to be researched.
We have studied the pathways of farm-based biogas develop-
ment in this paper by answering the research questions put
Western region Southern region
Accumulation Growth
Saturation Weak socio-technical couplings
Upscaling of business collaboration Further regional integration and/or technological
and/or downscaling of technologies dissemination through the addition of new actors
10 J. Niskanen, D. Magnusson / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123235
forward in Section 1. Based on the work by Naber et al. (2017), these
pathways have been conceptualized as different patterns of
upscaling: growth, replication, and accumulation. We have also
highlighted reasons for stagnation, following Kaijser (1994, 2004)
and Sovacool et al. (2018). These developments are perhaps best
understood if seen through the eyes of the actors involved in biogas
production and regional development. Through interviews with
farmers and regional actors, a farmer’s logic and a transitional logic
have been identified.
The farmer’s logic is characterized by farmers being used to
taking matters in their own hands and fixing what needs to be
fixed. The driver for this is often pragmatic: to use farm or family
resources more efficiently and to get rid of under-utilization of
resources and technological capital, etc. It can also be out of ne-
cessity: a new solution is needed due to changing conditions (e.g.
fuel prices). Farmers will produce biogas if the tools and know-how
existing at the farm can be used, if this fits with other farm prac-
tices, and if this can provide an income stream or in some other way
act as a resource. However, as concluded by Ersson et al. (2015), the
farmers and involved actors need long-term policies in order to
make secure investments. Countries like Germany and Denmark
are mentioned as role-models, and it is also here that substantial
technical development has happened (Raven and Gregersen, 2007),
and tinkering and technical innovation take place if there is a
protected and supportive space for it.
By contrast, the transitional logic is guided by an ideal of a
sustainable transition in which biogas can play a key role for local
society, businesses and the environment. In this vision, biogas plays
a part in a wider regime change away from fossil fuels. This tran-
sition is understood as being played out through regional devel-
opment projects incorporating local actors into different sectors,
contributing solutions to local problems. Farm-based biogas is thus
considered to contribute to a green, local economy that provides
jobs opportunities and secures a rural existence. However, it must
be noted that biogas is one among several solutions that can
contribute to a sustainable transition. All types of renewable energy
production, being it Solar PVs or wind power, compete with biogas
for subsidies, but none of them are a one-size-fits-all-solution, as
the conditions might not be right in order to make investments.
Farm-based biogas has the potential to be a contributing solution as
it is site specific and utilizes rather “useless” materials without
contributing with a net plus of GHGs. The great potential for biogas
in general, and farm-based biogas in particular (IEA, 2020; Linne 
et al., 2008) means that it can play a key role, as we argue that an
even more diverse energy system configuration, with decentralised
production and a great variety of energy sources and system design,
is necessary in order to handle the renewable energy transition.
These logics highlight socio-technical tensions and possibilities
at different scales, and are played out in specific and partially
predefined local and regional agricultural contexts. While the logics
are visible, they are not necessarily always characteristic of specific
actors: for example, in the north the technology consultant both
tinkered with small biogas plants and acted as an intermediary for
cross-sectoral business development. It should be mentioned that
the studied biogas regions differ a lot when it comes to their pre-
conditions as biogas regions. The northern region is substantially
less dense than the western and southern region, and is far from the
biogas market, including the pipe system running along the west-
ern coast of Sweden. The western and southern regions are more
similar but show some differences. The southern is more diverse
with different actors and several systems have run for a long time,
while the western is interconnected and circulate around one
system, although with more actors cooperating. These contexts
shape biogas production, distribution, and use (Larsson et al., 2016),
and different network-based business models are suitable for
different agricultural contexts at the regional level (Karlsson et al.,
2017). Some of the differences are thus strongly linked with
geographical preconditions, but also historical aspects. However,
this study highlights interesting logics that are in play when
broader sustainability objectives meet local farmers and their
business practices. Despite these differences it is key to remember
that the farmers act in a shared national regulatory environment
with the same policies and subsidies which increases the impor-
tance of studying regional differences. And, in all regions the
interviewed farmers are wanting for the same things: stable long-
term political rules and small-scale technologies. Stable long-
term policies play a key role in establishing biogas systems
(Ersson et al., 2015; IEA, 2020), and national and regional policies
could take the logics illustrated here more into concern.
The logics sometimes overlap, but they have been identified as
guiding different activities in the studied regions. As can be seen in
all three studied cases, these logics are sometimes well-aligned, but
when they are not, they risk contributing to stagnation (Kaijser,
1994, 2004; Sovacool et al., 2018) rather than upscaling (Naber
et al., 2017). For future upscaling, this study suggests that it is
important for the farmer and transitional logics to be well aligned.
And one way to better assure this alignment would be to present
subsidies which are more long-term and more closely tied to
regional biogas development objectives: e.g., subsidies could be
conditional on being linked to participation in regional biogas
systems (which as we have shown can take very different shapes).
Further research on this topic is needed, but it is possible that
conditional subsidies could be part of making biogas systems more
stable: e.g., by guaranteeing the sale of biogas to regional actors. Of
course, such a national policy instrument needs to be adapted to
regional differences and designed in close cooperation with biogas
farmers and relevant local actors.
Few Swedish farmers have been attracted to biogas production
in recent years, and this is partly due to a perceived lack of sub-
sidies, a lack of long-term policies, and a lack of regional in-
termediaries. However, increased farm-based biogas production is
also dependent on the integration of the farming and transitional
logics. This is especially important if biogas is to play a trans-
formational (Naber et al., 2017) e meaning a regime changing e role
in turning the agricultural sector away from fossil fuels.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Johan Niskanen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing -
original draft, Writing - review & editing, Formal analysis, Re-
sources. Dick Magnusson: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Investigation, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
Research for this article has been financed by the Biogas
€ ping University. This research was funded by
Research Centre, Linko
Swedish Research Council Formas (Svenska Forskningsrådet For-
mas), grant number 2014-1715, as part of the JPI Climate Joint Call
for Transnational Collaborative Research Projects, Societal Trans-
formation in the Face of Climate Change. The authors would like to
thank the research group STRIPE for valuable input, three anony-
mous reviewers and the interviewees.
 J. Niskanen, D. Magnusson / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123235
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123235.
References
Achinas, S., Achinas, V., Euverink, G.J.W., 2017. A technological overview of biogas
production from biowaste. Engineering 3 (3), 299e307.
Ahlberg-Eliasson, K., Nadeau, E., Leve n, L., Schnürer, A., 2017. Production efficiency
of Swedish farm-scale biogas plants. Biomass Bioenergy 97, 27e37.
Bluemling, B., Mol, A.P., Tu, Q., 2013. The social organization of agricultural biogas
production and use. Energy Pol. 63, 10e17.
Bo€rjesson, P., Mattiasson, B., 2008. Biogas as a resource-efficient vehicle fuel. Trends
Biotechnol. 26 (1), 7e13.
Chen, Y., Yang, G., Sweeney, S., Feng, Y., 2010. Household biogas use in rural China: a
study of opportunities and constraints. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (1),
545e549.
Chen, L., Zhao, L., Ren, C., Wang, F., 2012. The progress and prospects of rural biogas
production in China. Energy Pol. 51, 58e63.
European Biogas Association (EBA), 2018. Statistical Report 2018.
US Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2019. Biomass explained: landfill gas
and biogas. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/landfill-gas-and-
biogas.php.
David, Sutton, 2016. Samha €llsvetenskaplig metod. Studentlitteratur.
Ersson, C., Ammenberg, J., Eklund, M., 2015. Connectedness and its dynamics in the
Swedish biofuels for transport industry. Prog. Ind. Ecol. 9 (3), 269e295.
Fallde, M., Eklund, M., 2015. Towards a sustainable socio-technical system of biogas
for transport: the case of the city of Linko € ping in Sweden. J. Clean. Prod. 98,
17e28.
Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration pro-
cesses: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Pol. 31 (8e9),
1257e1274.
Geels, F.W., Schot, J., 2010. The dynamics of transitions: a socio-technical perspec-
tive. In: Grin, J., Rotmans, J., Schot, J. (Eds.), Transitions to Sustainable Devel-
opment: New Directions in the Study of Long-Term Transformative Change.
Routledge.
Guo, M., Song, W., Buhain, J., 2015. Bioenergy and biofuels: history, status, and
perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42, 712e725.
Hagman, L., Blumenthal, A., Eklund, M., Svensson, N., 2018. The role of biogas so-
lutions in sustainable biorefineries. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3982e3989.
Hijazi, O., Munro, S., Zerhusen, B., Effenberger, M., 2016. Review of life cycle
assessment for biogas production in Europe. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54,
1291e1300.
Hjalmarsson, L., 2015. Biogas as a boundary object for policy integration e the case
of Stockholm. J. Clean. Prod. 98, 185e193.
Ho€gselius, P., Kaijser, A., 2007. N€ ar Folkhemselen Blev Internationell: Elavregler-
ingen I Historiskt Perspektiv. SNS fo € rlag, Stockholm.
Hughes, T.P., 1983. Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880-
1930. JHU Press.
International Energy Agency (IEA), 2020. Outlook for Biogas and Biomethane:
Prospects for Organic Growth. IEA, Paris. https://www.iea.org/reports/outlook-
for-biogas-and-biomethane-prospects-for-organic-growth.
Kaijser, A., 1994. I F€adrens Spår: Den Svenska Infrastrukturens Historiska Utveckling
Och Framtida Utmaningar. Carlsson.
Kaijser, A., 2004. The dynamics of infrasystems. Lessons from history. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 6th International Summer Academy on Technology Studies e
Urban Infrastructure in Transition, pp. 153e166.
Karlsson, N.P., Halila, F., Mattsson, M., Hoveskog, M., 2017. Success factors for
agricultural biogas production in Sweden: a case study of business model
innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 2925e2934.
Karlsson, N.P., Hoveskog, M., Halila, F., Mattsson, M., 2018. Early phases of the
business model innovation process for sustainability: addressing the status quo
of a Swedish biogas-producing farm cooperative. J. Clean. Prod. 172,
2759e2772.
Kemp, R., Schot, J., Hoogma, R., 1998. Regime shifts to sustainability through pro-
cesses of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management.
Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 10, 175e198.
Klavon, K.H., Lansing, S.A., Mulbry, W., Moss, A.R., Felton, G., 2013. Economic
analysis of small-scale agricultural digesters in the United States. Biomass
Bioenergy 54, 36e45.
Ko€hler, J., et al., 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the
art and future directions. Environ.Innovat.Soc. Transit 31, 1e32.
Kvale, S., Brinkmann, S., 2009. Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research
Interviewing. Sage.
Lantz, M., 2013. Biogas in Sweden e Opportunities and Challenges from a Systems
Perspective. Thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering
11
Environmental and Energy System Studies. Lund University, Sweden.
Larsson, M., Gro €nkvist, S., Alvfors, P., 2016. Upgraded biogas for transport in
Swedeneeffects of policy instruments on production, infrastructure deploy-
ment and vehicle sales. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 3774e3784.
Lauer, M., Hansen, J.K., Lamers, P., Thra €n, D., 2018. Making money from waste: the
economic viability of producing biogas and biomethane in the Idaho dairy in-
dustry. Appl. Energy 222, 621e636.
Linne, M., Ekstrandh, A., Englesson, R., Persson, E., Bjo €rnsson, L., Lantz, M., 2008.
Den Svenska Biogaspotentialen Från Inhemska Restprodukter. Rapport. Avfall
Sverige, Svenska Biogasfo €reningen, Svenska Gasfo € reningen Och Svenskt Vatten.
€nnqvist, T., Silveira, S., Sanches-Pereira, A., 2013. Swedish resource potential from
Lo
residues and energy crops to enhance biogas generation. Renew. Sustain. En-
ergy Rev. 21, 298e314.
Lybæk, R., Andersen, J., Christensen, T.B., 2014. The role of municipalities, energy
companies and the agricultural sector in Denmark as drivers for biogas: trends
in the current development. J. Transdiscipl. Environ. Stud. 13 (2), 24e40.
Markard, J., Raven, R., Truffer, B., 2012. Sustainability transitions: an emerging field
of research and its prospects. Res. Pol. 41 (6), 955e967.
Martin, M., 2015. Potential of biogas expansion in Sweden: identifying the gap
between potential studies and producer perspectives. Biofuels 6 (5e6),
233e240.
Martin, H., Coenen, L., 2015. Institutional context and cluster emergence: the biogas
industry in Southern Sweden. Eur. Plann. Stud. 23 (10), 2009e2027.
Martin, Martin, 2017. Policy capacities for new regional industrial path develop-
ment e The case of new media and biogas in southern Sweden. Environ. Plann.
C 35 (3), 518e536.
Mittal, S., Ahlgren, E.O., Shukla, P.R., 2018. Barriers to biogas dissemination in India:
a review. Energy Pol. 112, 361e370.
Naber, R., Raven, R., Kouw, M., Dassen, T., 2017. Scaling up sustainable energy in-
novations. Energy Pol. 110, 342e354.
Negro, S.O., Alkemade, F., Hekkert, M.P., 2012. Why does renewable energy diffuse
so slowly? A review of innovation system problems. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 16 (6), 3836e3846.
Noorollahi, Y., Kheirrouz, M., Asl, H.F., Yousefi, H., Hajinezhad, A., 2015. Biogas
production potential from livestock manure in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
50, 748e754.
Olsson, L., Fallde, M., 2015. Waste(d) potential: a socio-technical analysis of biogas
production and use in Sweden. J. Clean. Prod. 98, 107e115.
Pan, H., Page, J., Zhang, L., et al., 2019. Understanding interactions between urban
development policies and GHG emissions: A case study in Stockholm Region.
Ambio 49 (7), 1313e1327.
Raven, R.P.J.M., Gregersen, K.H., 2007. Biogas plants in Denmark: successes and
setbacks. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 11 (1), 116e132.
Ruggiero, S., Martiskainen, M., Onkila, T., 2018. Understanding the scaling-up of
community energy niches through strategic niche management theory: in-
sights from Finland. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 581e590.
Salomon, K.R., Lora, E.E.S., 2009. Estimate of the electric energy generating potential
for different sources of biogas in Brazil. Biomass Bioenergy 33 (9), 1101e1107.
Shen, Y., Linville, J.L., Urgun-Demirtas, M., Mintz, M.M., Snyder, S.W., 2015. An
overview of biogas production and utilization at full-scale wastewater treat-
ment plants (WWTPs) in the United States: challenges and opportunities to-
wards energy-neutral WWTPs. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50, 346e362.
Smith, A., Raven, R., 2012. What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in
transitions to sustainability. Res. Pol. 41 (6), 1025e1036.
Sovacool, B.K., Lovell, K., Ting, M.B., 2018. Reconfiguration, contestation, and
decline: conceptualizing mature large technical systems. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val.
43 (6), 1066e1097.
Svensson, L.M., Christensson, K., Bjo €rnsson, L., 2005. Biogas production from crop
residues on a farm-scale level: is it economically feasible under conditions in
Sweden? Bioproc. Biosyst. Eng. 28 (3), 139e148.
Swedish Board of Agriculture (SBA), 2020. Investeringssto € d fo
€ r biogas. Available at.
https://nya.jordbruksverket.se/stod/fornybar-energi/investeringsstod-for-
biogas.
Swedish Energy Agency (SEA), 2018. Produktion Och Anv€ andning Av Biogas Och
Ro€trester År 2017. Report: ES 2018:01.
Swedish Energy Agency (SEA), 2019. Produktion Och Anva €ndning Av Biogas Och
Ro€trester År 2018. Report: ER 2019:23.
Urban, F., Nordensv€ ard, J., 2018. Low carbon energy transitions in the nordic
countries: evidence from the environmental kuznets curve. Energies 11 (9),
2209.
Venkateswara, R.P., Baral, S.S., Dey, R., Mutnuri, S., 2010. Biogas generation potential
by anaerobic digestion for sustainable energy development in India. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (7), 2086e2094.
Weiland, P., 2010. Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl. Micro-
biol. Biotechnol. 85 (4), 849e860.
Yazan, D.M., Fraccascia, L., Mes, M., Zijm, H., 2018. Cooperation in manure-based
biogas production networks: an agent-based modeling approach. Appl. En-
ergy 212, 820e833.