See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315367022

Assessment of feedstocks for biogas production, part I—A multi-criteria

approach

Article  in  Resources Conservation and Recycling · February 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.019

CITATIONS READS

12 83

2 authors:

Roozbeh Feiz Jonas Ammenberg

Linköping University Linköping University
9 PUBLICATIONS   164 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   654 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Strategic Multi-Criteria Assessment of biogas solutions View project

Biogas Research Center: Quantitative system analysis for improved resource-efficiency of different biogas solutions – critical factors and uncertainty handling View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Roozbeh Feiz on 01 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122 (2017) 373–387

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

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

Full length article

Assessment of feedstocks for biogas production, part I—A

multi-criteria approach
Roozbeh Feiz ∗ , Jonas Ammenberg
Division of Environmental Technology and Management, Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, Sweden

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

Article history: Expansion of biogas production is dependent on the availability of suitable feedstocks (biomass). What
Received 1 August 2016 feedstock is suitable is a question that can be tackled from many different perspectives—it is a multi-
Received in revised form 2 December 2016 dimensional problem. Therefore, a multi-criteria method has been developed that can be used to assess
Accepted 29 January 2017
the suitability of feedstock for biogas and biofertilizer production. The method covers aspects of resource
Available online 21 February 2017
efficiency and feasibility, and the potential to supply renewable energy and recycle nutrients, operational-
ized via 16 indicators directed towards cost efficiency, technological feasibility, energy and environmental
Keywords:
performance, accessibility, competition, policy and other issues. Thus it is relatively comprehensive
Multi-criteria analysis
Biogas
method, yet simple enough to be used by practitioners. The main ambition, applying the method, has
Biofertilizer been to collect and structure relevant information to facilitate strategic overviews, communication and
Resource efficiency informed decision making. This is relevant for development within the biogas and biofertilizer industry,
Feasibility to define and prioritize among essential research projects, regarding policy, etc. This article, the first of
Strategic decision making two associated articles, is focused on the method itself. For illustration, the method is applied to assess
the suitability of producing biogas from “stickleback”, which is a non-edible fish in the Baltic Sea region.
In the companion article (Part II), four other feedstocks are assessed in detail, namely ley crops, straw,
farmed blue mussels, and source-sorted food waste.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Biogas can contribute to a transition toward a more circular
and biobased economy by delivering biomaterials and bioenergy
(EBA, 2014; European Commission, 2011; Langeveld et al., 2012;
Oborne, 2010). Biogas is produced through anaerobic digestion,
which gives a gas which is primarily a mixture of methane (CH4 )
and carbon dioxide (CO2 ) methane, but also smaller amounts of
other substances. Different substrates and types of production, lead
to different specific compositions of the biogas. The raw biogas
from the production can be used as it is, to generate electricity and
heat, or purified into almost pure methane (97%) and be used in
the transportation sector. Digestate is the residual product of the
anaerobic production process and consists of many essential nutri-
ents for plant growth which can be used as biofertilizer (Wellinger
et al., 2013).
Several studies have assessed the biofuel/bioenergy potential in
the world (Banerjee et al., 2012; e.g. Beringer et al., 2011; Campbell
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: roozbeh.feiz@liu.se (R. Feiz), jonas.ammenberg@liu.se
(J. Ammenberg).
et al., 2008; De Wit and Faaij, 2010; Fischer and Schrattenholzer,
2001; Mendu et al., 2012). These studies yield very different esti-
mates, because they have different methodological approaches, for
example, variances regarding geographical scope, what feedstock
is included, what type of potentials that are studied (theoretical,
technical, economic, ecologic, etc.), time perspective, etc. Even if
the results vary considerably, most studies seem to conclude that
the bioenergy potential is significantly higher than the present
level of utilizlation (Offermann et al., 2011). There are also studies
for Sweden with varying approaches and results (Börjesson et al.,
2013; Hiloidhari et al., 2014; Kaygusuz and Türker, 2002; Smith
et al., 2012). Nevertheless, many studies illustrate that there is a
significant potential to expand the biogas production in Sweden
(Biofuel Region, 2013; Björnsson et al., 2011; Dahlgren et al., 2013;
Ersson et al., 2013; Forsberg, 2011; Fransson et al., 2013; Linné et al.,
2008; Lönnqvist et al., 2013; Nordberg et al., 1998; Nordberg, 2006;
Ossiansson et al., 2013).
In Sweden, biogas has been produced from sewage sludge at
wastewater treatment plants since the 1960s, and from there has
evolved into several other sectors (Biogasportalen, 2014; Svenska
biogasföreningen, 2004), involving new types of feedstock. There
has been a continuous expansion and development of the bio-
gas sector for many years (Energimyndigheten, 2015), but there

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.019
0921-3449/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
374 R. Feiz, J. Ammenberg / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122 (2017) 373–387
are signs of waning (Svensson and Baxter, 2015). Many biogas
producers are faced with serious challenges and try to reach
or maintain profitability (Avfall Sverige, 2011; Elamzon, 2009;
Energimyndigheten, 2010; Lantz, 2013). Many of the reported chal-
lenges seem to be feedstock related: the nutrient content of the
biofertilizer, and thereby digestate management, is related to the
nutrient content of the feedstock (Ersson et al., 2015; Martin, 2015);
some feedstocks need energy-intensive processes of collection or
pretreatment (Berglund, 2006); the environmental performance
and wider socio-economic implication of biogas production is
dependent on the type and origin of the feedstock (Berglund, 2006;
Elamzon, 2009); the profitability is directly influenced by the cost of
obtaining the feedstock, which is in turn influenced by competing
interests, the possibility to control the supplies, and transportation
distances (Avfall Sverige, 2011; Energimyndigheten, 2010; Ersson
et al., 2015; Martin, 2015); the institutional conditions and means
of control vary depending on the type of feedstock used (European
Parliament, 2009); and finally there are technological issues for
processing several types of feedstocks (Karlsson, 2014). There-
fore, it appears to be urgent and of strategic importance to learn
more about biogas feedstock—feedstocks’ suitability for biogas and
biofertilizer production.1 But we have not found any methodology
that is broad enough to address the diverse range of challenges
mentioned.
2. Aim and scope
The main aim of this article is to develop a method for strate-
gic, broad and systematic assessment of the suitability of different
feedstocks for biogas and biofertilizer production. Strategic means
to be proactive and have a long-term perspective; broad means to
cover several areas of relevance, for example to include the men-
tioned challenges that biogas producers are facing, and also apply
a life-cycle perspective; and systematic means to utilize a logical
structure that aligns feedstock assessment and leads to compara-
ble results for all types of feedstock. The method shall consider the
perspective of biogas producers, but also a broader socio-economic
perspective. It shall include aspects of resource efficiency, feasibil-
ity and potential. For illustration, the method is applied to assess
the suitability of producing biogas from “stickleback”, which is a
non-edible fish in the Baltic Sea region.
This article is the first of two associated articles, and as men-
tioned it focuses on the methodological aspects of feedstock
assessment, providing some exemplifying results. As a comple-
ment, the companion article (Part II: Ammenberg and Feiz, 2016)
is focused on results, having applied the method on four other
feedstocks; namely ley crops, straw, farmed blue mussels, and
source-sorted food waste. Combined, the aim is to contribute to
increased knowledge about biogas feedstock assessment and the
suitability of the selected feedstocks in a Swedish context.
This publication is the result of research within the Biogas
Research Center (BRC), which is a transdisciplinary centre of excel-
lence with the vision:
“Resource efficient biogas solutions are implemented in many new
applications and contribute to a more sustainable energy supply,
improved environmental conditions and good business”
This vision has influence the direction of the research, e.g. the
focus on resource efficiency and feasibility (implementation). Mainly,
this article is based on a project which ran through 2013–2014. It
1
Since biogas and digestate are co-produced and digestate can be used as biofer-
tilizers, in this article the terms “biogas production” and “biogas producer” refer to
“biogas and biofertilizer production” and “biogas and biofertilizer producer” respec-
tively.
involved researchers working with environmental systems anal-
ysis and biogas processes. About 10 representatives and experts
from several Swedish biogas-related organizations were directly
involved—as project participants and co-researchers. These orga-
nizations included a few biogas-producing companies (public and
private): a company which is specialized in the use of diges-
tate as biofertilizer; an agricultural cooperative which produces
agricultural products and is owned by almost all active Swedish
farmers; an association which represents Swedish farmers and
most Swedish cooperatives in the agricultural and forestry sector;
and several experts and researchers in anaerobic digestion-process
technologies. In addition, the knowledge and expertise of the net-
work of actors in the BRC have been used, and have influenced the
framing and orientation of the research. The project was prolonged
and was still ongoing when this article was written, involving addi-
tional researchers and “biogas actors”. Information gathered and
experiences from 2015 an onwards, are also incorporated.
The focus BRC and this article is on biogas/biomethane
production from anaerobic fermentation, not thermo-chemical
gasification.
3. Theory and method
The question “is this feedstock suitable for biogas and biofertilizer
production?”, or in short “the suitability question”, is multi-faceted,
because biogas solutions are embedded in manifold social, eco-
nomic and environmental contexts. This question does not have
a clear-cut answer that can be analytically and non-controversially
reached, because suitability depends on judgements which can
vary between different stakeholders and conditions. Therefore,
this question has a resemblance to a class of problems which are
referred to as “wicked” (Churchman, 1967; Rittel and Webber,
1973). Answers to these problems remains open-ended and incon-
clusive, because they are faced with a changing set of constraints
and conditions.
One of our strategies for dealing with this wicked problem
was to adopt a collaborative strategy (Roberts, 2000). This strat-
egy is based on the idea that joined and aligned parties can achieve
more collectively, and by creating a win–win approach to problem-
solving. It facilitates the sharing of knowledge between different
stakeholders. In all steps of our research, we maintained a close
collaboration with the participants of the project. Our participa-
tory approach also helped us to maintain the project relevant to
the actual challenges of the actors, with a normative considera-
tion of enhancing the “implementation of resource-efficient biogas
solutions” (BRC, 2015). The knowledge and expertise of the par-
ticipants was complemented by literature search. To some extent,
we also adopted an authoritative strategy (Roberts, 2000) which
reduced the complexity of the process by limiting the number
of stakeholders who were authorized to define the problem and
formulate solutions. We selected this set of participants through
the existing organizational structures and networks within BRC.
We gave a central role to the perspective of the biogas producers,
but this perspective was complemented by a societal perspective
which took into account aspects such nutrient management and
different environmental impacts. By highlighting the role of bio-
gas producers—that is, granting them an authoritative role—and
focusing on their challenges and conditions within or outside of
the biogas sector, we made the suitability question simpler.
We developed our assessment method based on multi-criteria
analysis (MCA). MCA is method of investigation “that explic-
itly accounts for multiple areas, or criteria/attributes, when
assessing different alternatives” (Feiz, 2016; cf. Department for
Communities and Local Government, 2009; Mendoza and Martins,
2006; Mendoza et al., 1999). It provides a systemic way of creating
 R. Feiz, J. Ammenberg / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122 (2017) 373–387
meaning out of a wide range of relevant information, enables incor-
poration of several complementary and incommensurable aspects
into the analysis, and makes it easier to use both quantitative and
qualitative types of information (Dixit and McGray, 2013; Mendoza
et al., 1999; Wedley, 1990). MCA is becoming increasingly popular
for assessing different alternatives and to support decision-making
regarding sustainable solutions (Achillas et al., 2013; Ananda and
Herath, 2009; Buchholz et al., 2009b; Govindan et al., 2015; Herva
and Roca, 2013; Mendoza and Martins, 2006; Taha and Daim, 2013;
Wang et al., 2009). There is no international standard for MCA,
however, most MCA studies involve problem definition, identifying
the alternatives, defining the criteria and indicators, weighting and
quantitative analysis, and finally recommendation of the preferred
alternatives. While our MCA method follows this general steps, it
does not contain the weighting and scoring, because our focus was
not to create final decisions—identification of best choices—but to
create a space for stakeholders to systematically consider different
aspects of using a biomass for biogas production, and to transpar-
ently discuss the trade-offs and priorities. The main characteristic
that we borrowed from common MCA approaches was the pos-
sibility to perform more comprehensive assessment compared to
several other studies of choosing biomass for biogas production.
Analyzing suitability of biomass as feedstock for biogas pro-
duction is related to the studies that assess the sustainability of
bioenergy and biomaterials. Typically, these studies include criteria
and indicators related to economic viability, environmental perfor-
mance and social acceptability (Elghali et al., 2007; Mitchell et al.,
2004). Most focus on energy use and greenhouse gas emissions
(Buchholz et al., 2009a; Cherubini and Strømman, 2011), while indi-
cators related to exergy, life-cycle cost, social cost, pollution, land
use, safety, and many others aspects are also used (Lee and Den,
2016). Some of the studies focus on technological choices related
to technological readiness level and performance (Billig and Thrän,
2016; Budzianowski, 2016; Hacatoglu et al., 2013). Relatively fewer
studies consider the role of actors in the implementation of the
studied solutions (Rimppi et al., 2016; Vaidya and Mayer, 2016).
We developed a multi-criteria assessment method and there-
after applied it on several feedstocks (Fig. 1). The development of
the method consisted of a few steps and were performed in an
iterative manner: (Step 1) framing the assessment, which included
identification of the main aim and perspectives as well as selecting
the participants; (Step 2) defining the key areas and key questions;
(Step 3) performing a domain study in order to learn about each
key area and compile relevant information; and (Step 4) develop-
ing indicators and scales for each key area in such a way that the
most important information about each key area and the uncer-
tainty of the assessment was represented. We applied this method
on selected feedstocks (the right box in Fig. 1). The result of assess-
ments for a few feedstocks is presented in Part II.
Ten “key areas” were considered relevant and important for
assessing the suitability of a feedstock for biogas production
(Table 1). In addition to biogas producers, considerations regard-
ing resource efficiency and long-term societal impacts influenced
the choice of the key areas (see Introduction). Each key area was
studied and analyzed in order to identify the set of indicators that
could sufficiently cover that key. We tried to minimize the num-
ber of indicators in order to keep the method relatively simple;
as a result, most of the key areas were characterized by one or
two indicators. We defined five-step scales for each indicator using
quantitative ranges or qualitative descriptions. So it was possible
to assign a value for each indicator out of these pre-defined scales
ranging from very poor to very good. The definitions of the ranges
were reviewed and discussed iteratively with project participants
and a few other experts. In addition, a simple three-step scale was
used to show the uncertainty of the assessor regarding the value
which is assigned to each indicator: “ * ” referred to high uncer-
375
tainty (not certain), “ ** ” referred to some uncertainties, and “ ***
” referred to low uncertainty (rather certain). If the assessment is
based on sufficiently established and relevant information the cer-
tainty should be assessed as high, but if the assessment is based
on limited, ambiguous or less relevant information, the certainty
should be assessed as low. An overview of the key areas, key ques-
tions and the related indicators are presented in Table 1.
For the sake of simplicity and comparability, the multi-
criteria assessment method was based on assessing a single
feedstock at a time, implying a mono-digestion scenario. But most
commercial-scale biogas production plants in Sweden co-digest
several feedstocks; for that reason, focusing on mono-digestion of a
single feedstock was a source of methodological tension. Therefore,
when assessing some of the key areas, such as biomethane yield and
suitability for anaerobic digestion, it is important to add comments
regarding opportunities for co-digestion. This is relevant for other
key areas as well.
For some key areas and questions, such as biomethane yield, the
choice of indicators was rather straightforward, because similar
quantitative parameters were already used and there were exist-
ing values for them. In a way, it can be said that these areas are
more bounded and easier to define. Other key areas and questions,
such as environmental and energy performance, are more complex,
which makes them more difficult to be characterized through a
few simple indicators and scales. Our strategies in dealing with
the more complex areas were to treat them as distinct but inter-
penetrating, semi-permeable, and porous concepts which naturally
overlap and blend with other areas; utilize a combination of qual-
itative and quantitative scales which allows the incorporation of
subjective knowledge of the experts and higher levels of aggrega-
tion and abstraction; and finally, if required, present them with
more than one indicator. An important challenge has been to for-
mulate indicators and scales that cover the most essential parts for
each key question (the most essential sub areas), without including
too many aspects leading to overcomplicated scales and difficul-
ties to carry out the assessment. As the indicators do not cover all
relevant aspects, it was important to not only assess against the
scales, but also to look at the compiled inventory of information
and write down important conclusions that were not well-covered
by the indicators.
4. The assessment methodology
In this section, the developed multi-criteria assessment
method—including the key areas, indicators, and scales—is pre-
sented in detail. For a short overview, see Table 1.
4.1. Description of feedstock
Obviously, the feedstock which is going to be assessed has to be
defined. The description is not a key area itself, but is an impor-
tant part of the assessment and should include the name of the
feedstock; its origin (agricultural, aquatic, forest, etc.); the type of
feedstock (primary, secondary, residue, etc.); its key components
(carbohydrates, lipids, lignocellulose, etc.); its dry matter content,
also known as total solids (DM or TS in% mass); its organic dry mat-
ter content, also known as volatile solids (oDM or VS in% mass);
and its carbon-nitrogen ratio (C/N). Further clarifying information
about the assessed feedstock may be added during the assessment.
4.2. Biomethane yield and suitability for anaerobic digestion
The feedstock has to be anaerobically digestible with a good
biomethane yield, and should contain suitable components for effi-
cient digestion. This is issue is address by the first key area and is
covered by two key questions (Table 1). The first key question asks
376 R. Feiz, J. Ammenberg / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122 (2017) 373–387

Fig. 1. Overview of the multi-criteria approach of this paper. The left box summarizes the main steps for developing the multi-criteria method for assessing the suitability
of feedstocks for biogas production. The box on the right shows the result of using the method for assessing different feedstocks. The results of applying this method on a
few feedstocks are presented in the companion article (Part II).

Table 1
Key areas of investigation and the corresponding questions which help in defining the suitability of a feedstock for biogas production.

Key area and key question Indicators

Description of feedstock
What are the defining characteristics of the assessed feedstock? N/A
Biomethane yield and suitability for anaerobic digestion
Is this feedstock good from a strict biomethane yield perspective? Biomethane yield
Is this feedstock suitable for anaerobic digestion? Suitability for anaerobic digestion
Nutrient content and suitability for biofertilizers
Is this feedstock good from a strict nutrient content perspective? Nutrient content
Is this feedstock suitable for biofertilizer production? Suitability for biofertilizers
Accessibility
Is the feedstock good considering the physical and geographical accessibility? Geographical and physical accessibility
Amount of biomethane
Is the estimated total amount of this feedstock large enough to significantly contribute to the Amount of biomethane
total biomethane production?
Amount and value of biofertilizers
Is the estimated total amount of this feedstock large enough to significantly contribute to Amount of nutrients
nutrient recycling?
Technological feasibility
Are the needed technologies and infrastructures available and applicable considering the whole Technological feasibility
life-cycle for biogas and biofertilizers produced from this feedstock?
Profitability or cost-efficiency
Is biogas and biofertilizer production from this feedstock contributing to profitability or cost Profitability or cost efficiency
efficiency for the producer (also considering other products and services/effects)?
Control and competition
Is it possible for the biogas and biofertilizer producer to control or secure provision of this Control and competing interests
feedstock, and is it good regarding competing interests (low competition for it)?
Institutional support and societal acceptance
Is biogas production from this feedstock supported by the government and other institutions? Level of support and administrative implications
Planning horizon and clarity of business implications
Is the public opinion about biogas production from this feedstock positive? Public opinion
Environmental and energy performance
Greenhouse gas emissions savings
Is it reasonable from an energy and environmental perspective to produce biogas from this
feedstock?
Energy/balance Local/Regional environmental impact
Indirect land use change

about the biogas yield, referring to the amount of biomethane that
can be produced through digestion per unit of mass of the feedstock,
under controlled and close-to-ideal lab conditions. The second key
question focuses on the anaerobic digestibility under real-world
conditions (in the production plant), and asks whether or not the
feedstock contains the needed components for an efficient diges-
tion in biologically available and proper amounts/proportions. Each
of these key questions are represented by a single indicator.
In order to define the scales for the indicator “biomethane
yield” we looked into many types of organic materials and their
biomethane yields (Carlsson and Uldal, 2009; Mital, 1996). The
reported yield of a certain type of biomass is not necessarily the
 R. Feiz, J. Ammenberg / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122 (2017) 373–387 377

same in different sources, because they can be based on different

VH ≥ 100 S G G VG VG
procedures or biomass composition (Björnsson, 2011). The ranges

(kg N/tonneDM)
used in the scale definition are given as volume of gas per unit of H 70–100 S S G VG VG

Total-N
weight for each feedstock. Therefore, aspects such as biomethane
or raw biogas, fresh or dry weight, and theoretical value or lab test M 30–70 P S S G G
(and the type of the lab test) were considered. The theoretical values L 10–30 P P S S G
are always significant overestimations, because some of the carbon
will be used by the microbes to grow and in reality the feedstock VL ≤ 10 VP P P S S
is not completely digested. For example, Schnürer and Carlsson
VL L M H VH
(2011) state that when comparing experimental methane potential
to a theoretical value, a maximum of 90–95% can be expected in a ≤1 1–10 10–20 20–30 ≥ 30
batch assay since the rest of the substrate is used for growth of the
microorganisms. For a continuous process, the methane yield may Total-P (kg P/tonneDM)
be only 50–70% of the theoretical yield (Jarvis and Schnürer, 2009).
Fig. 2. Scale for nutrient content; Total-N in kg N/tonne DM, Total-P in kg P/tonne
We used theoretical values in order to check the reported figures. DM. The abbreviations used are: VG, very good; G, good; S, satisfactory; P, poor; VP,
Methane yields higher than 600 m3 CH4 /tonne VS were considered very poor; and VH, very high; H, high; M, medium; L, low; and VL, very low. The
very good, while values between 400 and 600, 200 and 400, 50 and scale is suggested both for generic and case-specific assessments.
200, and less than 50 were considered good, satisfactory, poor, and
very poor respectively.
ent crops, and food waste (Carlsson et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2005;
The second indicator for this key area is the “suitability for
Deublein, 2010; FAO, 2014; Kimo van Dijk et al., 2014; Nordberg
anaerobic digestion” which is based on anaerobic digestibility,
et al., 1997; Torstensson, 2003). For better comparability, total
but also considering whether the feedstock contains the compo-
amounts of nutrients per tonne dry matter were compiled. The
nents needed for an efficient digestion (in bioavailable and suitable
scales are shown in Fig. 2.
amounts/proportions). An important parameter is the carbon-
Another indicator related to this key area is the suitability of
to-nitrogen ratio (C/N ratio) (Carlsson and Uldal, 2009), which
a feedstock for producing valuable biofertilizers. Regardless of its
although does not have all the important information regarding
nutrient content, the value of the biofertilizers can be influenced
biodegradability, is still helpful. A C/N ratio between 20 and 30
by the presence of undesirable substances/materials, their persis-
is typically considered as suitable (Dioha et al., 2013). Another
tence, and how difficult it is to remove them. For example, heavy
related factor is the C:N:P ratio, which is optimal for degradation
metals or plastics can make the digestate unsuitable for biofertil-
around 100:5:1 (Steffen et al., 1998). Other important attributes
izer applications, but large pieces of plastics are easier to remove,
to consider in the assessment are: biodegradability (e.g. Labatut
compared to smaller pieces. Scales for suitability for biofertilizers are
et al., 2011), the content of other nutrients and trace elements
shown in Table 3.
(Karlsson et al., 2014), physical properties which can have an
impact on the digestion (for instance, pieces of straw may enhance
4.4. Accessibility
the digestion because microorganisms can grow on them), and con-
taminants or components inhibiting the digestion which cannot
Accessibility to feedstock is assessed from the geographical and
be easily removed in a pretreatment step (Karlsson et al., 2014).
physical perspectives (Table 1). Geographical accessibility is about
Since this indicator is not focused on the technology — technology is
the aerial distribution of the feedstock across a given area. For
addressed in another key area — here, optimal pretreatment of the
example, some types of industrial feedstock may be found at a few
feedstock is assumed. By this assumption, we aim to separate tech-
production sites, meaning that they are easily accessible from a
nological issues from the properties of the feedstock itself. Based
geographical perspective. Others, like algae, may be spread out over
on these aspects, a qualitative scale was developed for s uitability
very large areas. The physical accessibility considers how easy it is
for digestion, which is shown in Table 2.
to access the feedstock and make use of it. For example, it is eas-
ier to collect algae from naturally occurring piles on the shore than
4.3. Nutrient content and suitability for biofertilizers
to collect the algae in the sea, which is more diluted. The focus is
not technical here, but regards how dense or pure the feedstock is.
Digestate contains nutrients and organic matter which can be
Distances and potential logistical difficulties (aside from the tech-
used as biofertilizer. Anaerobic digestion enhances the bioavail-
nological choices) are considered. Table 4 presents the qualitative
ability of the nutrients; therefore, digestate, if used as biofertilizer,
scale for the indicator geographical and physical accessibility.
can play a role in nutrient recycling and organic agriculture. The
value and quality of the digestate as biofertilizer depends on the
type of feedstock, the digestion process and the methods used for 4.5. Amount of biomethane
the digestate treatment. Since this key area does not assess tech-
nological aspects, the focus is on the relevant characteristics of the Amount of biomethane addresses the bioenergy potential of
feedstock, namely the nutrient content and presence of undesirable producing biogas from the assessed feedstock. This is calculated
substances/materials that can affect the quality of the biofertilizer based on the potential amount of biomass and its biomethane
(Table 1). yield. For the generic assessment we have defined the amount
For simplicity and also considering what seems to be most which can be considered as significant in Swedish context. For case-
important on the existing Swedish market, the “nutrient content” specific assessment, the contribution of this feedstock to the total
indicator focuses on the content of nitrogen (N) and phosphorous biomethane output of a biogas plant is used as the basis of assess-
(P). It is encouraged that the assessment is accompanied by addi- ment Table 5.
tional information about other types of nutrients such as potassium
(K) or sulfur (S). In order to get a picture of the variation of nutri- 4.6. Amount and value of biofertilizers
ent content of different feedstock, we made an inventory of the
nutrient contents of several common feedstocks such as sewage Another key area of assessment is the total amount of nutrients
sludge, different types of manure, meat and animal wastes, differ- that can that can potentially contribute to nutrient recycling. This
378 R. Feiz, J. Ammenberg / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122 (2017) 373–387

Table 2
Scale for the indicator suitability for anaerobic digestion. The scale is suggested both for generic and case-specific assessments.

Value Scale definition

Assuming that an optimal technical pretreatment has been performed:

Very good This feedstock is very digestible and contains all of the components needed for digestion (in suitable amounts and proportions). There is
no content of undesirable substances/materials that are inhibiting.
Good This feedstock is digestible and contains most of the components needed for digestion (in suitable amounts and proportions). This means
that additives are needed. There is no content of undesirable substances/materials that are inhibiting.
Satisfactory This feedstock is rather digestible and contains some of the components needed for digestion (in suitable amounts and proportions). This
means that this feedstock needs to be co-digested with feedstock containing the lacking components (or additives need to be added).
There may be some content of undesirable substances/materials, but they are not significantly inhibiting.
Poor This feedstock may be used as a complementary feedstock for co-digestion, because it contains one or a few of the needed components.
There may be some content of undesirable substances/materials, but they are not significantly inhibiting.
Very poor This feedstock cannot contribute to the digestion process, or may act as an inhibitor.
OR
There is some content of undesirable substances/materials that will significantly inhibit the digestion.

Table 3
Scale for the indicator suitability for biofertilizers. The scale is suggested both for generic and case specific assessments.

Value Scale definition

Consider the contaminants in the feedstock and applicable Swedish regulations:

Very good The feedstock contains negligible amounts of undesirable substances/materials and these undesirable materials are easily degradable
(they are very short-lived) or can be easily removed.
(To produce certified biofertilizers is very likely unproblematic.)
Good The feedstock contains negligible amounts of undesirable substances/materials and these undesirable substances/materials are
relatively degradable (they are relatively short-lived) or can be relatively easily removed.
OR
The feedstock contains noteworthy amounts of undesirable substances/materials, but these undesirable substances/materials are easily
degradable (they are very short-lived) or can be easily removed.
(To produce certified biofertilizers is likely unproblematic.)
Satisfactory The feedstock contains negligible amounts of undesirable substances/materials, but these undesirable substances/materials are not
degradable (they are persistent) and are difficult to remove.
OR
The feedstock contains noteworthy amounts of undesirable substances/materials, but these undesirable substances/materials are
relatively degradable (they are rather short-lived) or are relatively easy to remove.
OR
The feedstock contains high amounts of undesirable substances/materials, but these undesirable materials are easily degradable (they
are very short-lived) or are easy to remove.
(To produce certified biofertilizers is possible, but requires precaution.)
Poor The feedstock contains noteworthy amounts of undesirable substances/materials, and these undesirable substances/materials are not
degradable (they are persistent) and cannot be removed.
OR
The feedstock contains high amounts of undesirable substances/materials, and these undesirable substances/materials are not
easily degradable (they are rather persistent) or cannot be easily removed.
(To produce certified biofertilizers is problematic.)
Very poor The feedstock contains high amounts of undesirable substances/materials, and these undesirable substances/materials are not
degradable (they are persistent) and cannot be removed.
(To produce certified biofertilizers is not possible.)

Fig. 3. Generic scales for the indicator amount of nutrients (Total-N and Total-P in tonnes/year; the abbreviations used are: VH, very high; H, high; M, medium; L, low; VL,
very low; VG: very good, G: good, S: satisfactory, P: poor, VP: very poor).
 R. Feiz, J. Ammenberg / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122 (2017) 373–387 379

Table 4
Scale for the indicator geographical and physical accessibility.

Value Scale definition Remarks

Very good Most of the biomass is located within small/connected areas and in such a
way/form that it is easily accessible. Assuming technological feasibility, biogas
production appears favorable considering collection and transportation.
Good A large share of the biomass is located However, a small share of the biomass Some large-scale biogas production plants
within small/connected areas AND in is spread over large/unconnected might be possible. For most of the biomass,
such a way/form that it is easily areas OR has such a form that it is hard medium or small-scale biogas plants seem
accessible. Assuming technological to access. Even if assuming reasonable.
feasibility, biogas production appears technological feasibility, biogas
favorable within these areas production is probably not reasonable
considering collection and within these areas considering
transportation. collection and transportation.
Satisfactory A significant share of the biomass is However, a significant share of the Primarily medium or small-scale biogas
located within small/connected areas biomass is spread over production seems reasonable for some of this
and in such a way/form that it is easily large/unconnected areas or has such a feedstock.
accessible. Assuming technological form that it is hard to access. Even if
feasibility, biogas production is assuming technological feasibility,
possible within these areas biogas production is probably not
considering collection and reasonable within these areas
transportation. considering collection and
transportation.
Poor A small share of the biomass is located However, a large share of the biomass Mainly small-scale biogas production seems
within small/connected areas and in is spread over large/unconnected reasonable for a small share for this feedstock.
such a way/form that it is easily areas or has such a form that it is hard
accessible. Assuming technological to access. Even if assuming
feasibility, biogas production is technological feasibility, biogas
possible within these areas production is probably not reasonable
considering collection and within these areas considering
transportation. collection and transportation.
Very poor Most of the biomass is spread over large/unconnected areas or has such a Perhaps a few small-scale biogas plants might
form that it is hard to access. Even if assuming technological feasibility, biogas be possible, or no production at all.
production is probably not reasonable within these areas considering
collection and transportation.

Table 5
Scales for the indicator amount of biomethane. Separate scales are defined for generic and case-specific assessment.

Very good Good Satisfactory Poor Very poor

Generic scales
− Energy (GWh/year) ≥500 300–500 100–300 10–100 ≤10
− Biomethane (million ≥50 30–50 10–30 1–10 ≤1
Nm3 /year)
Case-specific scales
− Share of biogas that can be ≥70% 40–70% 10–40% 1–10% ≤1%
produced from this feedstock
(% of the existing or planned
production)

key area is represented by a single indicator, amount of nutrients
and focuses on two important nutrients: nitrogen (N) and phos-
phorous (P). A participatory approach was used to set the levels and
thresholds in the scale and. From that level, the lower thresholds
were established similarly to the indicator amount of biomethane.
For case-specific assessment, the share in the nutrient output of a
biogas plant which can be obtained from the studied feedstock was
considered, with thresholds similar to the case-specific indicator
for the amount of biomethane (Fig. 3).
4.7. Technological feasibility
Technological feasibility focuses on the question of whether the
needed technologies and infrastructures for producing biogas from
the feedstock exist and if they are both available and applicable,
while considering all steps in the life-cycle. Technological solu-
tions have different levels of readiness; some might be in early
research/development stages, others are tested on a pilot level, and
some are fully developed and available on a market. There might
also be challenges for which there are no technological solutions
known today (Table 6).
4.8. Profitability or cost-efficiency
To maintain and expand biogas production, it is essential that
the involved actors are doing well economically. The economic
rationality of producing biogas from a certain feedstock may vary,
depending on the purpose and the context. A stand-alone biogas
and biofertilizer production should be profitable, while a focus
on cost efficiency may be more relevant in other contexts — for
example, biogas production in relation to waste treatment. The
scale regarding profitability (or economic rationality) is presented
in Table 7, where it is assessed from a generic, average Swedish
biogas and biofertilizer producers’ perspective. However, the scale
may be used for case-specific assessments as well. Issues related to
economic stability can be added via comments.
4.9. Control and competition
The key area of control and competition assesses the extent to
which the biogas and biofertilizer producers are able to control or
secure the provision of a given feedstock in the future. In addi-
tion, alternative usages of the feedstock, which implies existing or
potential competition for utilizing the feedstock, are considered
380 R. Feiz, J. Ammenberg / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122 (2017) 373–387

Table 6
Scale for the indicator technological feasibility. The scale is suggested both for generic and case-specific assessments.

Value Scale definition Remarks

Very good Mature technological solutions exist on the market and
they are applicable and commonly implemented in a
rather optimized way.
Good Technological solutions exist on the market and they are
applicable and implemented, but there are areas that
could improve.
Satisfactory Technological solutions exist on the market and are
applicable and implemented, but there are areas that
should be improved significantly.
Poor The technological solutions that exist on the market are
not applicable, or are very inefficient.
OR...
No technological solutions exist on the market, but there
are promising research/development activities that are
expected to solve the problems within a period of 10 years.
Very poor No technological solutions exist on the market.
OR...
There are relevant research/development activities
ongoing, that could solve the problems, but they are not
expected to solve the problems within a period of 10 years.
Biogas production from this feedstock is not faced with any
technological barriers (no job-stoppers) and there is no
significantly underdeveloped technology in any stage of the
life-cycle.
Biogas production from this feedstock is not faced with any
technological barriers (no job-stoppers), but there are significantly
underdeveloped technologies that could be improved.
Biogas production from this feedstock is not faced with any
technological barriers (no job-stoppers), but there are a few
underdeveloped technologies which should be improved
significantly.
Biogas production from this feedstock is faced with technological
barriers (some job-stoppers) and there are many underdeveloped
technologies that need to be improved significantly.
Biogas production from this feedstock is not feasible.

Table 7
Scale for the indicator profitability or cost efficiency. The scale is suggested both for generic and case-specific assessments.

Value Scale definition Remarks

Very good Biogas production from this feedstock will likely contribute to This means that from an economic perspective, it appears very
significant profitability or cost efficiency, even if investments in good to produce biogas from this feedstock, even if investments in
new plants/facilities are required. The economic situation is production facilities are needed.
characterized as stable.
Good Biogas production from this feedstock will likely contribute to This means that from an economic perspective, it appears very
profitability or cost-efficiency, even if investments in new good to produce biogas from this feedstock if investments in
plants/facilities are required. The economic situation is production facilities are not needed, or at least acceptable, even if
characterized as stable. investments in production facilities are needed.
OR...
Biogas production from this feedstock will likely contribute to
significant profitability or cost efficiency if the feedstock is used
within existing biogas facilities. The economic situation is
characterized as stable.
Satisfactory Biogas production from this feedstock might contribute to This means that from an economic perspective, it appears
profitability or cost efficiency, even if investments in new acceptable to produce biogas from this feedstock if investments in
plants/facilities are required. The economic situation is production facilities are not needed, and it might be good even if
characterized as uncertain/varying. investments in production facilities are needed. However, the
OR... latter is uncertain.
Biogas production from this feedstock will likely contribute to
profitability or cost efficiency if the feedstock is used within
existing biogas facilities. The economic situation is characterized
as stable.
Poor Biogas production from this feedstock will likely lead to losses or This means that from an economic perspective, it does not seem
cost inefficiency if investments in new plants/facilities are reasonable to utilize this feedstock for biogas production, at least
required. not to a large extent. There is a significant risk of losing some
OR... money, or there are other more cost-efficient options.
Biogas production from this feedstock might contribute to losses
or cost inefficiency if the feedstock is used within existing biogas
facilities. The economic situation is characterized as
uncertain/varying.
Very poor Biogas production from this feedstock will likely lead to This means that from an economic perspective, it would be very
significant losses or cost inefficiency if investments in new unwise to utilize this feedstock for biogas production. There is a
plants/facilities are required. large risk of losing a lot of money.
OR...
Biogas production from this feedstock might contribute to losses
or cost inefficiency, even if the feedstock is used within existing
biogas facilities.

(Avfall Sverige, 2011). These include productification or valoriza- ling the feedstock, commonly in the form of signing contracts which
tion of the feedstock through alternative processes — for example, can secure their access for a certain time period and price.
instead of biogas, produce fodder. It is often relevant to consider
other types of products/services which are possible to produce from
4.10. Institutional support and societal acceptance
this feedstock and their potential value in existing and future mar-
kets (e.g. Jenkins, 2008). The qualitative scale for this indicator is
presented in Table 8, which represents the possibilities of control- Institutional support and societal acceptance is another key area
of assessment in this method. Biogas actors often recognize means
 R. Feiz, J. Ammenberg / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122 (2017) 373–387 381

Table 8
Scale for the indicator control and competition. The scale is suggested both for generic and case-specific assessments.

Value Scale definition Remarks

Very good Existing biogas and biofertilizer producers have control over this Regarding control and competition, the terms for access are
feedstock, and this is expected to remain for a long period (at least for reasonable considering a period of at least 7 years.
7 years).
OR...
If existing biogas and biofertilizer producers would like to produce
biogas from this feedstock, they are able to sign very long-term
contracts (at least for 7 years) to secure the access during this period.
Except for biogas and the by-products from that production, there
seem to be no realistic competing options for productification and
valorization.
Good If existing biogas and biofertilizer producers would like to produce Regarding control and competition, the terms for access are
biogas from this feedstock, they are able to sign long-term contracts reasonable considering a period of at least 5 years, but the
(at least for 5 years) to secure the access during this period. The longer-term picture is a bit uncertain.
feedstock might be used for some other applications, which is why the
competition might increase in the near future.
Satisfactory If existing biogas and biofertilizer producers would like to produce Regarding control and competition, the terms for access are
biogas from this feedstock, they are able to sign short-term contracts reasonable considering a period of at least 3 years, but the
(at least for 3 years) to secure the access during this period. The longer-term picture is very uncertain.
feedstock might be used for many other applications, which is why the
competition is expected to increase in the near future.
Poor If existing biogas and biofertilizer producers would like to produce Regarding control and competition, the terms for access are only
biogas from this feedstock, they are only able to sign very short-term reasonable considering a period of 1 year, but the longer-term picture
contracts (at least for 1 year) to secure the access during this period. is very uncertain.
The feedstock is used for some other applications, and many others are
possible, which is why the competition is expected to increase
significantly in the near future.
Very poor Existing biogas and biofertilizer producers cannot get access to this Regarding control and competition, this feedstock is not realistic to
feedstock, because they do not control it AND/OR the competition for utilize for biogas production.
it is too tough.
Clarity of business

Significant support G VG VG Very well specified P G VG

implications
General level of support

Some support S G G Rather well specified P S G

No support P S S Unclear VP VP VP

Short term Medium term Long term

Some barriers VP P P
< 2 years 2–5 years > 5 years
Significant barriers VP VP VP Planning horizon
Burdensome/ Easy/ Fig. 5. Scale for planning horizon and clarity of business implications. (The abbre-
Reasonable
inefficient efficient viations used are: VG: very good, G: good, S: satisfactory, P: poor, VP: very poor).
The scale is suggested both for generic and case-specific assessments.
Administrative implications
The third indicator concerns the public opinion regarding pro-
Fig. 4. Scale for the indicator level of support and administrative implications. (The
duction of biogas from a certain type of feedstock and assesses how
abbreviations used are: VG: very good, G: good, S: satisfactory, P: poor, VP: very
poor). The scale is suggested both for generic and case-specific assessments.
people in the community, or nation, think about or discuss the use of
a certain feedstock for biogas and biofertilizer production (Table 9).

4.11. Environmental and energy performance

of control as influential factors on the market (e.g. Dahlgren et al.,
2013; Höglund et al., 2013). In addition, public opinion can influ-
ence the means of control, planning and management of resources,
energy and transportation systems, and so on. Three indicators are
defined to characterize this key area. The first indicator deals with
the general level of support and administrative implications, where
it is seen as favorable if biogas and biofertilizer production from a
certain feedstock is supported, and the support system is regarded
to be efficient from an administrative point of view. In addition, it
is important to consider if existing support systems are reasonable
from a socio-economic perspective, or if there are reasons to intro-
duce new support schemes, or change (increase or decrease) the
general level of support. (Fig. 4)
Regardless of the level of support, it is important that the
rules/conditions for biogas and biofertilizer production and their
business implications are clear and relatively stable. These aspects
are considered in the second indicator within this key area (Fig. 5).
Like any other industrial activity, production of biogas is
associated with environmental impacts, positive and negative. Con-
sidering the full life-cycle, these impacts include emissions with
global impacts (for example, greenhouse gases contributing to cli-
mate change), regional impacts (for example, emissions which
contribute to acidification or eutrophication) or other impacts due
to the release of toxic or undesirable materials. Environmental
impacts of producing biogas or biofertilizer from a feedstock can
occur both directly and indirectly. Most biogas production systems
in Sweden have a very good environmental performance compared
to petroleum (Börjesson and Berglund, 2006; Lantz, 2013). For
assessing the environmental and energy performance, it is relevant
to consider emissions contributing to climate change, eutrophi-
cation and acidification; emissions related to particles and other
airborne pollutants which have impacts on ozone depletion and
local air quality; and toxic effects related to release of metals and
382 R. Feiz, J. Ammenberg / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122 (2017) 373–387

Table 9
Scale for the indicator public opinion. The scale is suggested both for generic and case-specific assessments.

Value Value Scale definition

Very good Biogas production from this feedstock is widely supported. The general public opinion is very positive.
Good Biogas production from this feedstock is supported, and the general public opinion is positive.
Satisfactory Biogas production from this feedstock is seen as reasonable by most people, but there is also some
critique/skepticism leading to an ongoing discussion. However, the general public opinion is acceptance.
OR
It appears uncontroversial to produce biogas and biofertilizers from this feedstock, and there is no public debate about
it although production exists and/or is planned and known.
Poor Biogas production from this feedstock is questioned by many people, even if it is supported by some.
Very poor Biogas production from this feedstock is seen as unacceptable by many people.

chemical substances. There can be direct impacts on the local eco-
system, for example, biogas production from an aquatic feedstock
might lead to reduced eutrophication, but also to reduced amounts
of food for other species, and have other effects. Assumptions
regarding the alternative use of feedstock, land, or sea areas influ-
ence the assessment and can lead to indirect land and water use
effects. Since the environmental assessment is very complex and
comprises many different effects and uncertainties, simplification
is needed. Therefore, we have defined four indicators representing
energy and environmental performance.
The first indicator focuses on the climate impact (Allen et al.,
2014) or the greenhouse gas emissions savings expressed as the
amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (gCO2 eq) which
can be reduced in comparison with a baseline fossil reference
(Table 10). This indicator is also used to get a rough picture about
the global/regional environmental performance, as it indirectly
provides information about emissions such NOx and SO2 which
are commonly linked to fossil fuel use. However, one must also
consider that carbon sinks (like avoided methane formation from
manure) and carbon sequestration play a role (Tufvesson et al.,
2013; Björnsson and Prade, 2014). The upper thresholds used for
this indicator are based on the European Renewable Energy Direc-
tive (2009/28/EC) which defines sustainability criteria for energy
from renewable sources (European Parliament, 2009). Although the
thresholds for defining the scales are borrowed from RED, we do not
recommend a similar method for calculating the greenhouse gas
emissions savings. Instead, a life-cycle assessment method based
on ISO 14000 (Ekvall and Finnveden, 2001; ISO, 2006a,b) is used.
The baseline fossil reference is defined assuming that the biogas is
upgraded and used as fuel for transportation — a rather common
practice in Sweden. If the biogas is not upgraded and is used for heat
or electricity production, other appropriate baseline fossil alterna-
tives can be used. The emissions savings are calculated by using the
following formula:
Efossil − Ebiogas
GH Gemissions savings (%) =
Efossil
Where Ebiogas is the total GHG emissions from biogas (well-to-
wheel) and Efossil is the total GHG emissions from the baseline fossil
fuel.
In the generic assessment, the fuel baseline standard is set to
94.1 gCO2 eq/MJ (European Commission, 2014). In particular cases,
where biogas is used for heat or electricity production, other suit-
able fuel baseline standard values can be used.
The second indicator is the energy balance which shows the rela-
tion between the energy invested in the biogas fuel and the usable
biogas output (e.g. Berglund and Börjesson, 2006). When calculat-
ing the energy balance, expressed as energy input/output ratio, all
the primary energy inputs—that is, all natural energy carriers which
are used before any conversion or transformation—of the produc-
tion system in all of the stages of its life cycle should be taken into
account, and put in relation to the energy content of the biogas
product (often upgraded biogas) (Table 11).
The third indicator deals with all (other) direct local or regional
impacts, thereby covering issues that are not directly linked to
energy use. These impacts are typically attributed to activities
related to the production of feedstock and the use of digestate,
including local effects related to changed transportation. They
include impacts on land/soil such as increased/decreased erosion,
organic content, nutrient losses, and the addition of toxic sub-
stances from pesticides and fertilizers; impacts on water resources
such as increased/decreased eutrophication and the addition or
removal of toxic substances; impacts on biodiversity/ecosystems
such as the impact on habitats, food chains, and the introduction
of invasive species; and other local/regional impacts such as odor,
noise and esthetic issues (Table 12).
Biofuel production can be related to land use changes (for exam-
ple, converting pastureland into cultivated land), which is relevant
to consider from an environmental and socio-economic perspec-
tive. However, since it is often not clear if a certain change in the
land use is to be seen as negative or positive, this aspect is not
assessed, but should be commented on.
The fourth indicator deals with the indirect land use changes
(iLUC) that may occur as a consequence of producing biogas from a
certain feedstock. Estimating iLUC is not easy, and research in this
area is ongoing (e.g. Höglund et al., 2013). It is intuitive to believe
that changed use of land resources previously primarily used for
the production of food or feed may lead to indirect land use change
(Table 13).
5. Example producing biogas from non-edible fish in the
baltic sea
In the second paper (Part II), the results of applying the devel-
oped multi-criteria method on several feedstocks (ley crops, straw,
blue mussels, and household food waste) are presented. In this
paper, and with the purpose of illustration, we present one exam-
ple where we used the method for assessing the suitability of using
stickleback, a non-edible fish from the Baltic Sea, as a feedstock for
biogas production. The population of this fish in the Baltic Sea has
rapidly increased in the last decade, a phenomenon which is linked
to the eutrophication of this water body. The municipality of Väster-
vik, located on the eastern coast of Sweden, has been considering to
utilize this fish for biogas production to increase the biogas produc-
tion, improve local water quality by removing nutrients from the
eutrophicated coastal areas, and increase the usage of biofertilizers
in the regional farms. The assessment was performed considering
the conditions of Västervik (case-specific), but it also contained
generic parts related to Swedish conditions. This assessment was
performed in the form of interviews and a focus group, where those
involved, mainly experts from the municipality of Västervik, pro-
vided their insights about different areas. They have been involved
in this project for many years — a project that has involved local
fishermen, marine biologists, and agronomists. Later, this informa-
tion was complemented by desktop research and the assessment
was reviewed again by the domain experts. The summary of the
 R. Feiz, J. Ammenberg / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122 (2017) 373–387 383

Table 10
Scale for the indicator greenhouse gas emissions savings. The scale is suggested both for generic and case specific assessments.

Very good Good Satisfactory Poor Very poor

Greenhouse gas emissions savings ≥60% 50–60% 35–50% 15–35% ≤15%

(compared to fossil reference)

Table 11
Scale for energy balance (energy balance: ratio of the useful energy content of the biogas to the sum of primary energy input into the biogas system, while considering the
total life-cycle. The scale is suggested both for generic and case-specific assessments.

Very good Good Satisfactory Poor Very poor

Energy balance ≥5 3–5 2–3 1–2 ≤1

Table 12
Scale for the indicator local/regional environmental impact of biogas production from the assessed feedstock, focusing on the local/regional-level impacts including land/soil
effects, impact on water resources, impact on biodiversity/ecosystems, and other local/regional impacts. The scale is suggested both for generic and case-specific assessments.

Value Scale definition Remarks

Very good There are no significant negative environmental effects, AND
there are significant positive environmental effects.
Good There are some significant negative (but still acceptable)
environmental effects, AND there are several significant
positive environmental effects, or some of great importance.
Satisfactory There are no significant environmental effects OR the
negative and positive effects are judged to be of similar
importance (where the negative are acceptable).
Poor There are several significant negative environmental effects,
OR some of great importance.
Very poor There are many significant negative environmental effects,
AND there are no significant positive environmental effects.
It is very beneficial from a local/regional environmental
perspective to produce biogas from this feedstock.
This means that it is beneficial from a local/regional
environmental perspective to produce biogas from this
feedstock.
It is neutral from a local/regional environmental perspective
to produce biogas from this feedstock.
It is negative from a local/regional environmental perspective
to produce biogas from this feedstock.
It is unreasonable from a local/regional environmental
perspective to produce biogas from this feedstock.

Table 13
Scale for the indicator indirect land use change. The scale is suggested both for generic and case-specific assessments.

Value Scale definition

(generic)

Consider if indirect land use change can occur as a result of using this feedstock for biogas production.
Very good This feedstock is very unlikely to conflict or compete with food or feed production (it is very unlikely that it leads to
indirect land use change); AND it is very unlikely that the use of this feedstock for biogas production contributes to
indirect adverse ecological and social consequences; AND it is likely that the use of this feedstock for biogas
production contributes to indirect positive ecological and social consequences.
Good This feedstock is unlikely to conflict or compete with food or feed production (it is unlikely that it leads to indirect
land use change); AND it is unlikely that the use of this feedstock for biogas production contributes to indirect adverse
ecological and social consequences; AND it is likely that the use of this feedstock for biogas production contributes to
indirect positive ecological and social consequences.
Satisfactory This feedstock is unlikely to conflict or compete with food or feed production (it is unlikely that it leads to indirect
land use change); AND it is unlikely that the use of this feedstock for biogas production contributes to indirect adverse
ecological and social consequences; AND it is unclear that the use of this feedstock for biogas production contributes
to any indirect positive ecological and social consequences.
Poor This feedstock is likely to conflict or compete with food or feed production (it is likely that it leads to indirect land use
change); OR it is likely that the use of this feedstock for biogas production contributes to indirect adverse ecological
and social consequences.
Very poor This feedstock is very likely to conflict or compete with food or feed production (it is very likely that it leads to
indirect land use change); OR it is very likely that the use of this feedstock for biogas production contributes to
indirect adverse ecological and social consequences.

assessment is presented in Table 14, with a short clarifying text for
each indicator.
These results show strengths for stickleback as feedstock for
biogas and biofertilizer production, in the form of a good energy
balance, greenhouse gas emissions savings, and removal of excess
nutrients from the Baltic Sea used as biofertilizers. However, under
current conditions in Sweden, producing biogas from stickleback
in large scale is not permitted, and there are uncertainties regard-
ing the economic viability. Furthermore, there are uncertainties
about the location and dynamics of the fish population, which can
influence the performance of the fishing operation.
Producing biogas from stickleback fish is an example of a sit-
uation where existing institutional conditions in Sweden are not
adapted to, and hence hinder, an innovation process which can
potentially lead to addressing several problems at the same time.
Through framing of the initiative from a one which merely focuses
on production of renewable energy to one which aims to simultane-
ously produce renewable energy, contribute to water quality, and
promote nutrient recycling and sustainable agriculture, it would
be easier to enter into a debate about the direction of the institu-
tional change. Therefore, multi-criteria assessment can help us to
find alternative ways of framing the biogas solutions.
Using the results of the assessments of a few different feed-
stocks which are presented in Part II of this paper, we can draw
different comparative diagrams which can make it easier to iden-
tify differences, similarities, and gaps among many different types
of feedstocks. For example the results of assessing a few feedstocks,
including Stickleback, for three indicators related to energy balance
and environmental impacts are illustrated in Fig. 6.
384 R. Feiz, J. Ammenberg / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122 (2017) 373–387

Table 14
Result of applying the multi-criteria assessment method for producing biogas from stickleback in Västervik.

Indicator Assessment Clarifying comments (summary)

(variability)
Certainty

Biomethane yield Good Between 445 and 570 m3 CH4 /tonne VS (Malmborg and Påledal, 2014).
***
Suitability for anaerobic Satisfactory Contains all of the components needed for anaerobic digestion, however since they are not in the right
digestion *** balance, co-digestion is needed. It is likely that the low C/N ratio of stickleback requires co-digestion with
more carbon-rich substrates.
Nutrient content Very good About 77 kg N and 135 kg P per dry tonne (Linder and Kjellquist, 2014).
***
Suitability for biofertilizers Good A bit high zinc content. If mono-digested, the digestate is not recommended to be used as biofertilizer
*** (Linder and Kjellquist, 2014).
Geographical and physical Satisfactory The geographical spread of the stickleback and its accessibility may vary a lot. If the fish is nearby and as
accessibility (Very poor-Very good) concentrated as expected by Västervik municipality, it is relatively easy to access. There is wide variability,
* but the typical situation is unclear. Lack of knowledge about the stickleback’s ecology creates uncertainty,
and needs further investigation.
Amount of biomethane Good/Poor About 40% of the existing biogas production capacity in Västervik is currently available. The plan is to
* increase the production from 6 GWh to 20 GWh within two years, from which at least 10 GWh may come
from stickleback (50% of the planned production). This corresponds to about 7000 t of fish per year. If this
minimum amount of fish can be harvested from the sea, it can be used as feedstock for biogas production;
otherwise, Västervik may not consider the amount sufficient for biogas production. At this stage, it is not
clear if this needed amount will be available. More knowledge about the ecology of the fish is needed, as
well its sustainable catch rate.
Amount and value of Very good If 100% of the biogas production capacity is utilized using the existing substrate mix, the total annual
biofertilizers ** nutrient output will be about 150 t N and 65 t P. Utilization of 7000 t of stickleback can generate more than
70% of this amount of nutrients.
Technological feasibility Satisfactory In general, there are sufficiently developed technologies for all of the stages except fishing and storage. A
(Good) special technique for using a common fishing net exists, but it is not adapted for the selective fishing of
** stickleback, which is a small fish. However, it is expected that this technology should work, and some tests
in Västervik have been performed. Storage may be a technological bottleneck because large amounts of
fish need to be stored for a few months of the year. Mature technological solutions, such as industrial
freezing, are available and applicable (through cooperation with the local fish processing industry).
However, cheaper solutions such as ensilaging of the fish might work; this solution still has to be tested in
practice. For ensilaging, the fish slurry is stored in a non-cooled tank, which creates a kind of ensilage
which naturally prevents the fish from being digested. There is no major technological issue in
pretreatment, digestion, and biofertilizer management, since they are similar to existing biogas systems
based on other substrates.
Profitability or cost-efficiency Satisfactory If a cheap storage solution such as ensilaging proves to work, the fish can be caught whenever they get
** close to coastal areas (relatively close to the biogas plant), and therefore with less cost for fishing. For
example, a flat price can be paid to fisherman for one day of fishing (about 12 h), and if they fish 50 t in one
trip from near areas, they can return to the sea for the second round in the same day. So under favorable
conditions, the price of fish for the biogas producer can be low enough, and may even justify additional
investments for utilization of fish as substrate.
Control and competing Poor The commercial fishing of stickleback is not developed yet, so currently it is not possible to sign long-term
interests *** agreements with fishermen or get long-term permits for fishing. Under current circumstances, it is only
possible to get a one-year permit from the Swedish authorities; longer-term permissions are not currently
available. The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten) needs
further ecological knowledge before introducing new legislation. There are other competing applications
for stickleback. It can be used for producing fishing oil and feed for sea and land animals. Thus, if everyone
starts to fish stickleback, competition between these alternatives may increase.
Level of support and Very poor At this moment, existing legislation hinders the full-scale production of biogas from stickleback. It
administrative implications *** challenges some of the existing regulations, for example on fishing or hygienization of organic materials,
because they are not suitably adapted to utilization of aquatic resources. The existing rules do not appear
to be reasonable because they stop utilization of fish for biogas on a commercial scale. More knowledge is
needed to suggest how these regulations should be updated.
Planning horizon and clarity ofPoor It is rather clear that the existing legislation hinders the full-scale production of biogas from stickleback.
business implications *** However, there are many signs that indicate this situation may change in the future. Different
governmental organizations have shown interest, and grants have been given to the project. This means
that the government sees such initiatives as a way to gain more knowledge about aquatic resources. In
addition, by demonstrating that Västervik’s municipality has multiple perspectives on this project, as
opposed to simply looking for bioenergy production, it has increased the interest of different
governmental bodies.
Public opinion Satisfactory Public opinion has been mostly positive, especially with the locals. There have been a few critics who say
*** it may not be ethical to use fish for biogas.
Greenhouse gas emissions Satisfactory–Very good Based on the scenarios in a recent LCA study (Västerviks Kommun, 2015).
savings **
Energy balance Very good Based on the scenarios in a recent LCA study (Västerviks Kommun, 2015).
**
Local/regional environmental Very good Since the population of Stickleback has largely increased as a result of eutrophication and other ecological
impact ** factors, a controlled harvesting of stickleback at a proper rate is likely to contribute to improved water
quality and a more balanced ecosystem in the Baltic.
Indirect land use change Very good No foreseeable impact.
**

good
very
Straw
Greenhouse gas emissions savings
good
sati sfactory
poor
Blue
Muss els
poor
very
very poor
poor
Fig. 6. Comparing several aspects of producing biogas from stickleback fish with
other feedstocks. For assessments of these other feedstocks, please refer to part II of
this paper.
6. Concluding discussion
Compared to most feedstock assessment studies in Sweden, the
developed multi-criteria method is rather comprehensive. Most
of these studies cover areas such as bio-methane yield, amounts
and technology, and sometimes they touch upon issues of geo-
physical accessibility and the producers’ economy. The strength of
our methodology is that it includes important issues such as biofer-
tilizers, nutrient recycling, additional dimensions of accessibility,
means of control, societal acceptance, energy and environmental
performance. Positive and negative synergy effects are also con-
sidered. Therefore, the developed method contributes to enhanced
knowledge about assessing the suitability of feedstock for biogas
production. By placing a more symmetric emphasis on renewable
energy (biogas) and nutrient recycling (biofertilizers) we lift the
importance of other aspects of biogas solutions, which point out
other applications, including situations where production of bioen-
ergy is not the primary goal. Nevertheless, it should be noted that
the developed method is not comprehensive. The included key
areas are identified through dialogue with the researchers, project
participants, and via literature studies and conceptual thinking.
Thus, other groups of researchers and stakeholders would have
suggested other key areas or indicators. For example, the study by
Gunnarsson et al. (2014) has several similarities, but there are also
important differences regarding what is included − one being that
they have emphasized issues related to landscape and aesthetics.
Developing and applying this method requires management of
extensive amount of information which has to be collected and clas-
sified. For each key question and corresponding indicators relevant
information, even from diverse and heterogeneous sources, need
to be synthesized and summarized. We started by raising a single
question (what feedstock is suitable?), then breaking it down into
key areas and questions, with adherent indicators. Then we contin-
ued the expansion by digger further into many subareas, compiling
a large inventory of relevant information. From this point, the aim
was to condense the gathered information by assessing each indica-
tor, including the uncertainty and providing short clarifying texts.
However, we chose not to aggregate the results further into a sin-
gle result/answer, although most multi-criteria studies includes
steps for explicit weighting and sorting (Communities and Local
Government, 2009; Mendoza et al., 1999). Instead we have used
results for the 16 indicators for the concluding analysis, as our aim
was not to produce an optimal decision but to provide a disciplined
R. Feiz, J. Ammenberg / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122 (2017) 373–387 385
structure to our stakeholders. Nevertheless, we have implicitly per-
formed a kind of weighting and sorting, through our choice of key
Local/regional areas and indicators.
environmental impact
Straw
Ley
The assessment of stickleback (the non-edible fish from the
Very good
Baltic Sea) could be carried out in accordance with the plan, based
Good
on literature studies and expert opinions. The participants together
Food Sckleback Sasfactory
Waste were able to assess all the indicators, and the main stakeholders
Poor
from Västervik Municipality appreciated the mutual learning dur-
Very poor
ing this process as well as the results. The summary results, and
especially the comparative overviews, provide a good basis for dis-
cussion and strategic decision making. It constitutes a condensed
and versatile tableau of information, because an identical assess-
ment can mean different things for different actors, depending on
their conditions and priorities.
One important challenge of multi-criteria analysis is related to
the transparency of the assessments which requires providing suf-
sasfactory good very
good ficient and relevant information to motivate each assessment. This
Energy balance means that the information and adherent references should be
made available to allow review and further development. In addi-
tion, it is important not to focus too much on the indicators when
assessing, because they do not fully capture the key questions.
Therefore, it is also important to document and provide additional
information of relevance. Further on, the wide span and diversity of
the key areas and indicators requires processing of large amount of
information from different sources which is time consuming. It is
possible to overcome this challenge by engaging a well-represented
group of experts and decision makers that can carry out assess-
ments during a workshops. If needed, expert-panel assessments
can be complemented by further document studies.
Another drawback of the developed method is its focus on a sin-
gle feedstock at a time. This does not represent a realistic situation
because most large-scale biogas production plants co-digest a few
different feedstocks. Therefore, it is important to consider the pos-
sibilities of co-digestion and provide clarifying comments about it.
Still assessing individual feedstocks can show possible co-digestion
opportunities, for example a feedstock which is poor in nutrients
may be a matched up with nutrient-rich feedstock. Moreover, it
is possible to define a common mix of feedstocks and perform
the assessment on this mix. For example, in addition to individ-
ual assessments on “straw” and “food waste”, mixtures of “straw
and food waste” can be assessed.
As mentioned before, the developed method places an equal sig-
nificance on both biogas and biofertilizers. This is important, not
only because many biogas producers find it difficult to have a prof-
itable biofertilizer production (e.g. Ersson et al., 2015), but also due
to the importance of nutrient recycling from a societal sustainabil-
ity perspective. However, producing biogas and biofertilizers, even
if possible at reasonable price, is not necessarily the best option
from a business or societal perspective. Looking at utilization of
biomass from a biorefinery perspective may reveal other types of
products that are possible to produce and may deliver higher value
for the producer as well as society (Octave and Thomas, 2009).
Biogas solutions due to their high flexibility on the input side, com-
pared to other biofuels (Börjesson et al., 2013; Lantz et al., 2007),
are advantageous and can be used to process the by-products of a
biorefinery.
The multi-criteria approach which was used for the develop-
ment of the assessment method in this paper can be used as a
structuring and organizing tool when performing an explorative
systems analysis on a relatively new case. A multi-criteria assess-
ment can be a basis for performing a good pre-study for any
upcoming in-depth systems analysis, such as life-cycle assessment
(LCA). Instead of basing a comparative LCA on several arbitrarily
defined scenarios regarding future development, a multi-criteria
assessment can help in mapping the terrain as well as identifying
the distinguishing characteristics and features of the studied sys-
386 R. Feiz, J. Ammenberg / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122 (2017) 373–387
tem and its context, thereby facilitating the development of much
better scenarios (Feiz, 2016).
Applying this method on several feedstocks can not only
increase our knowledge about feedstock potentials and suitabil-
ity for biogas production, but also contribute to more uniform
assessments, identification of knowledge gaps, informed policy or
business recommendations, and an overview of the related possi-
bilities and risks which can help in strategic decision-making. In
the second paper (Part II), we will present results of applying this
method on four different feedstocks: ley crops, straw, blue mussels,
and household food waste.
Acknowledgements
This research was performed within the Biogas Research Cen-
ter (BRC), which is a transdisciplinary center of excellence with
the overall goal of promoting resource-efficient biogas solutions
in Sweden. The BRC is funded by the Energy Agency of Sweden,
Linköping University, and more than 20 partners from academia,
industry, municipalities and other several public and private orga-
nizations.
References
Achillas, C., Moussiopoulos, N., Karagiannidis, A., Banias, G., Perkoulidis, G., 2013.
The use of multi-criteria decision analysis to tackle waste management
problems: a literature review. Waste Manag. Res. 31, 115–129, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0734242X12470203.
Allen, M., Barros, V., Broome, J., Cramer, W., Christ, R., and many others, 2014. IPCC
fifth assessment synthesis report − Climate Change 2014 synthesis report.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Ammenberg, J., Feiz, R., 2016. Assessment of feedstocks for biogas production, part
II: results for strategic decision making. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
Ananda, J., Herath, G., 2009. A critical review of multi-criteria decision making
methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecol.
Econ. 68, 2535–2548, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.010.
Avfall Sverige, 2011. Substratmarknadsanalys. Sammanställning och analys av
substratmarknaden (No. U2011:23).
Börjesson, P., Berglund, M., 2006. Environmental systems analysis of biogas
systems—Part I: fuel-cycle emissions. Biomass Bioenergy 30, 469–485.
Börjesson, P., Lundgren, J., Ahlgren, S., Nyström, I., 2013. Dagens och framtidens
hållbara biodrivmedel: underlagsrapport från f3 till utredningen om fossilfri
fordonstrafik. Rapport f3 13.
BRC, 2015. Biogas Research Center: Vision Statement.
Banerjee, R., Benson, S.M., Bouille, D.H., Brew-Hammond, A., Cherp, A., Coelho, S.T.,
Emberson, L., Figueroa, M.J., Grubler, A., Jaccard, M., Ribeiro, S.K., Karekezi, S.,
He, K., Larson, E.D., Li, Z., McDade, S., Mytelka, L.K., Pachauri, S., Patwardhan, A.,
2012. Global Energy Assessment – Global Energy Assessment. IIASA.
Berglund, M., Börjesson, P., 2006. Assessment of energy performance in the
life-cycle of biogas production. Biomass Bioenergy 30, 254–266, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.11.011.
Berglund, M., 2006. Biogas Production from a Systems Analytical Perspective. Lund
University.
Beringer, T.I.M., Lucht, W., Schaphoff, S., 2011. Bioenergy production potential of
global biomass plantations under environmental and agricultural constraints.
Gcb Bioenergy 3, 299–312.
Billig, E., Thrän, D., 2016. Evaluation of biomethane technologies in
Europe−Technical concepts under the scope of a Delphi-Survey embedded in a
multi-criteria analysis. Energy 114, 1176–1186, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2016.08.084.
Biofuel Region, 2013. Biogaspotential i Norrbotten och Västerbotten. Delrapport
för Färdplan Biogas i Norrbotten och, Västerbotten, pp. 2013.
Biogasportalen, 2014. Biogasens historia [WWW Document]. URL http://www.
biogasportalen.se/FranRavaraTillAnvandning/VadArBiogas/Biogasenshistoria
(Accessed 17 October 2014).
Björnsson, Lovisa, Prade, T., 2014. Introduction of grass-clover crops as bigoas
feedstock in cereal-dominated crop rotation. Parti II: effects on greenhouse gas
emissions. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle
Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector. Presented at the Life Cycle Assessment in
the Agri-Food Sector, American Center for Life Cycle Assessment, San Francisco.
Björnsson, L., Lantz, M., Davidsson, Å., Murto, M., 2011. Biogaspotential i Skåne
(text No. 2011:22).
Björnsson, L., 2011. Metanutbyte.
Buchholz, T., Luzadis, V.A., Volk, T.A., 2009a. Sustainability criteria for bioenergy
systems: results from an expert survey. J. Clean. Produ. Int. Trade Biofuels 17
(Suppl. 1), S86–S98, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.04.015.
Buchholz, T., Rametsteiner, E., Volk, T.A., Luzadis, V.A., 2009b. Multi Criteria
Analysis for bioenergy systems assessments. Energy Policy 37, 484–495, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.054.
Budzianowski, W.M., 2016. A review of potential innovations for production,
conditioning and utilization of biogas with multiple-criteria assessment.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54, 1148–1171, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
2015.10.054.
Campbell, J.E., Lobell, D.B., Genova, R.C., Field, C.B., 2008. The global potential of
bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42,
5791–5794.
Carlsson, M., Uldal, M., 2009. Substrathandbok för biogasproduktion. Svenskt
Gastekniskt Center.
Carlsson, M., Holmström, D., Lagerkvist, A., Bisaillon, M., 2013. Förbehandling av
biogassubstrat i systemanalys (No. WR-49). Waste Refinery.
Cherubini, F., Strømman, A.H., 2011. Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems:
state of the art and future challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 437–451, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.08.010.
Churchman, C.W., 1967. Guest editorial: wicked problems. Manage. Sci. 14,
B141–B142.
Communities and Local Government, 2009. Multi-Criteria Analysis: A Manual.
Department for Communities and Local Government, British government.
Dahlgren, S., Liljeblad, A., Cerruto, J., Nohlgren, I., Starberg, K., 2013. Realiserbar
biogaspotential i sverige år 2030 genom rötning och förgasning, Rapport
B2013:02. Avfall Sverige.
De Wit, M., Faaij, A., 2010. European biomass resource potential and costs. Biomass
Bioenergy 34, 188–202.
Department for Communities and Local Government, 2009. Multi-criteria analysis:
a manual.
Deublein, D., 2010. Biogas from Waste and Renewable Resources: An Introduction,
2nd, revised and expanded edition ed.d. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim.
Dioha, I.J., Ikeme, C.H., Nafi’u, T., Soba, N.I., Yusuf, M.B.S., 2013. Effect of carbon to
nitrogen ratio on biogas production. Int. Res. J. Nat. Sci. 1, 1–10.
Dixit, A., McGray, H., 2013. Analyzing Climate Change Adaption Options Useing
Multi-critera Analysis. World Resources Institute (WRI) and United States
Agency for International Development.
EBA, 2014. EBA’s Position on Bio-Economy.
Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G., 2001. Allocation in ISO 14041—a critical review. J. Clean.
Prod. 9, 197–208, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(00)00052-4.
Elamzon, R.H. för ökad biogasanvändning i, 2009. Rapport Hinder för ökad
biogasanvändning i Skåne [WWW Document]. URL http://www.lansstyrelsen.
se/skane/Sv/publikationer/2009/Pages/rapport hinder for okad
biogasanvandning.aspx (Accessed 12 February 2014).
Elghali, L., Clift, R., Sinclair, P., Panoutsou, C., Bauen, A., 2007. Developing a
sustainability framework for the assessment of bioenergy systems. Energy
Policy 35, 6075–6083, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.08.036.
Energimyndigheten, 2010. Förslag till sektorsövergripande biogasstrategi.
Slutrapport (No. ER 2010:23).
Energimyndigheten, E.S., 2015. Produktion och användning av biogas och rötrester
år 2014 (No. ES 2015:03).
Ersson, C., Ammenberg, J., Eklund, M., 2013. Biofuels for transportation in 2030:
feedstock and production plants in a Swedish county. Biofuels 4, 379–395,
http://dx.doi.org/10.4155/bfs.13.23.
Ersson, C., Ammenberg, J., Eklund, M., 2015. Connectedness and its dynamics in the
Swedish biofuels for transport industry. Progress in Industrial Ecology.
European Commission, 2011. Bio-Based Economy in Europe: State of Play and
Future Potential–Part 2.
European Commission, 2014. Methodology for the calculation and reporting of the
life cycle greenhouse gas intensity of fuels and energy by fuel suppliers.
European Parliament, 2009. Directive on the promotion of the use of energy from
renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives
2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Offic. J. Eur. Union 47, L 140/16, date: 5.6.2009.
FAO, 2014. The Composition of Fish [WWW Document]. The composition of fish.
URL http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/tan/x5916e/x5916e01.htm (Accessed 11
December 2014).
Feiz, R., 2016. Systems Analysis for Eco-Industrial Development: Applied on
Cement and Biogas Production Systems. Linköping University, Linköping,
Sweden (PhD Thesis).
Fischer, G., Schrattenholzer, L., 2001. Global bioenergy potentials through 2050.
Biomass Bioenergy 20, 151–159, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0961-
9534(00)00074-X.
Forsberg, J., 2011. Kartläggning av substrat för ökad biogasproduktion.
Energikontoret i Mälardalen AB, Biogas Öst.
Fransson, M., Hjort, A., Linné, M., 2013. Råvaruanalys inom projektet Biogas Botnia
− biogaspotentialen i Västerbotten, Västernorrland och Österbotten år 2013.
Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., Murugesan, P., 2015. Multi criteria decision
making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature
review. J. Clean. Prod. 98, 66–83, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.
046, Special Volume: Support your future today! Turn environmental
challenges into opportunities.
Gunnarsson, C., Ahlgren, S., Nordström, E.-M., 2014. Energigrödor och hållbarhet
(No. 423). JTI −Institutet för jordbruks- och miljöteknik.
Höglund, J., Hansen, K., Gustavsson, M., Hansson, J., Ahlgren, S., Börjesson, P.,
Sundberg, C., Helldin, J.-O., Moghaddam, E.M., Grahn, M., Persson, M.,
Cederberg, C., 2013. Biofuels and land use in Sweden − An overview of
land-use change effects (No. f3 2013:17).
Hacatoglu, K., Rosen, M.A., Dincer, I., 2013. An approach to assessment of
sustainability of energy systems. In: Dincer, I., Colpan, C.O., Kadioglu, F. (Eds.),
Causes, Impacts and Solutions to Global Warming. Springer, New York, pp.
363–387.
 R. Feiz, J. Ammenberg / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122 (2017) 373–387
Herva, M., Roca, E., 2013. Review of combined approaches and multi-criteria
analysis for corporate environmental evaluation. J. Clean. Prod. 39, 355–371,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.058.
Hiloidhari, M., Das, D., Baruah, D.C., 2014. Bioenergy potential from crop residue
biomass in India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 32, 504–512.
ISO, 2006. ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management; Life-Cycle
Assessment-Principles and Framework.
ISO, 2006. ISO 14044:2006 Environmental Management; Life-Cycle
Assessment-Requirements and Guidelines.
Jarvis, Å., Schnürer, A., 2009. Mikrobiologisk handbok för biogasanläggningar.
Swed gas technol cent. Rapp SGC 207, 1102–7371.
Jenkins, T., 2008. Toward a biobased economy: examples from the UK. Biofuels,
Bioprod. Bioref. 2, 133–143, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bbb.62.
Karlsson, A., Björn, A., Sepehr, S.Y., Svensson, B., 2014. Improvement of the Biogas
Production Process: Explorative project (EP1).
Karlsson, M., 2014. Final Report for BRC EP3 (New Industries) (No. 2014:3). Biogas
Research Center (BRC), Linköping.
Kaygusuz, K., Türker, M.F., 2002. Biomass energy potential in Turkey. Renew.
Energy 26, 661–678.
Kimo van Dijk, Oene Oenema, Jan Peter Lesschen, 2014. European phosphorus
balance: uses and losses in agriculture & other sectors.
Lönnqvist, T., Silveira, S., Sanches-Pereira, A., 2013. Swedish resource potential
from residues and energy crops to enhance biogas generation. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 21, 298–314, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.024.
Labatut, R.A., Angenent, L.T., Scott, N.R., 2011. Biochemical methane potential and
biodegradability of complex organic substrates. Bioresour. Technol. 102,
2255–2264, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.035.
Langeveld, H., Sanders, J., Meeusen, M., 2012. The Biobased Economy: Biofuels,
Materials, and Chemicals in the Post-oil Era. Earthscan.
Lantz, M., Svensson, M., Björnsson, L., Börjesson, P., 2007. The prospects for an
expansion of biogas systems in Sweden—incentives, barriers and potentials.
Energy Policy 35, 1830–1843, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.05.017.
Lantz, M., 2013. Biogas in Sweden – Opportunities and Challanges from a System
Perspective. Lund university (Diss.).
Lee, M., Den, W., 2016. Life cycle value analysis for sustainability evaluation of
bioenergy products. J. Clean. Prod. 113, 541–547, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.11.073.
Linné, M., Ekstrandh, A., Engelsson, R., Persson, E., Björnsson, L., Lantz, M., 2008.
Den svenska biogaspotentialen från inhemska restprodukter. Avfall Sverige,
Svenska biogasföreningen, Svenska Gasföreningen och Svenskt Vatten.
Martin, M., 2015. Potential of biogas expansion in Sweden: identifying the gap
between potential studies and producer perspectives. Biofuels, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/17597269.2015.1090769.
Mendoza, G.A., Martins, H., 2006. Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural
resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling
paradigms. For. Ecol. Manage. 230, 1–22.
Mendoza, G.A., Macoun, P., Prabhu, R., Sukadri, D., Purnomo, H., Hartanto, H., 1999.
Guidelines for Applying Multi-criteria Analysis to the Assessment of Criteria
and Indicators. CIFOR.
Mendu, V., Shearin, T., Campbell, J.E., Stork, J., Jae, J., Crocker, M., Huber, G., DeBolt,
S., 2012. Global bioenergy potential from high-lignin agricultural residue. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 4014–4019.
Mital, K.M., 1996. Biogas Systems: Principles and Applications. New Age
International.
Mitchell, C.A., Carew, A.L., Clift, R., 2004. The role of the professional engineer and
scientist in sustainable development. Sustainable development in practice:
Case studies for engineers and scientists 29–55.
Nordberg, Å., Edström, M., Pettersson, C.-M., Thyselius, L., 1997. Samrötning av
vallgrödor och källsorterat hushållsavfall. JTI rapport Kretslopp & Avfall.
View publication stats
387
Nordberg, Å., Lindberg, A., Gruvberger, C., Lilja, T., Edström, M., 1998.
Biogaspotential och framtida anläggningar i Sverige (No. JTI-rapport, Kretslopp
och avfall, nr 17).
Nordberg, U., 2006. Biogas Nuläge och framtida potential (No. Rapport 993,
T5-503).
Oborne, M., 2010. The bioeconomy to 2030: designing a policy agenda. OECD
Observer 35–38.
Octave, S., Thomas, D., 2009. Biorefinery: toward an industrial metabolism.
Biochimie 91, 659–664, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biochi.2009.03.015, Lipids
for the future from agro-resources to human health.
Offermann, R., Seidenberger, T., Thrän, D., Kaltschmitt, M., Zinoviev, S., Miertus, S.,
2011. Assessment of global bioenergy potentials. Mitigat. Adapt. Strat. Glob.
Change 16, 103–115.
Ossiansson, E., Fransson, M., Linné, M., 2013. Biogasproduktion i Norrbotten och
Västerbotten. Del 1 − Nulägesbeskrivning och biogaspotential.
Rimppi, H., Uusitalo, V., Väisänen, S., Soukka, R., 2016. Sustainability criteria and
indicators of bioenergy systems from steering, research and Finnish bioenergy
business operators’ perspectives. Ecol. Indic. 66, 357–368, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.005.
Rittel, H.W.J., Webber, M.M., 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.
Policy Sci. 4, 155–169, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.
Roberts, N., 2000. Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. Int.
Publ. Manage. Rev. 1, 1–19.
Schnürer, A., Carlsson, M., 2011. Handbok metanpotential.
Smith, W.K., Cleveland, C.C., Reed, S.C., Miller, N.L., Running, S.W., 2012. Bioenergy
potential of the United States constrained by satellite observations of existing
productivity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 3536–3544.
Steffen, R., Szolar, O., Braun, R., 1998. Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion. Institute
for Agrobiotechnology Tulln University of Agricultural Sciences, Viences, pp.
11.
Svenska biogasföreningen, 2004. Biogas: Renewable Energy from Organic Waste
[in Swedish: Förnybar energi från organiskt avfall]. Svenska biogasföreningen.
Svensson, M., Baxter, D., 2015. IEA bioenergy task 37 − country reports summary
2015. IEA Bioenergy Task 37.
Taha, R.A., Daim, T., 2013. Multi-criteria applications in renewable energy analysis,
a literature review. In: Daim, T., Oliver, T., Kim, J. (Eds.), Research and
Technology Management in the Electricity Industry, Green Energy and
Technology. Springer, London, pp. 17–30.
Torstensson, G., 2003. Ekologisk odling −Utlakningsrisker och kväveomsättning −
Ekologiska odlingssystem med resp. utan djurhållning på sandig grovmo i
södra Halland − Resultat från perioden 1991–2002 (No. ISSN 0347-9307).
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Tufvesson, L.M., Lantz, M., Börjesson, P., 2013. Environmental performance of
biogas produced from industrial residues including competition with animal
feed −life-cycle calculations according to different methodologies and
standards. J. Clean. Prod. 53, 214–223, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.
04.005.
Västerviks Kommun, 2015. Biogas från fisk − förstudie (slutrapport). Västerviks
Kommun.
Vaidya, A., Mayer, A.L., 2016. Criteria and indicators for a bioenergy production
industry identified via stakeholder participation. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World
Ecol. 23, 526–540, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2015.1135830.
Wang, Chong-Ho, Lin, Yu-Wen, Huang, Wei-Ten, Chiu, Li-Rong, 2005. Raw
materials used for composting. Food Fertil. Technology Center.
Wang, J.-J., Jing, Y.-Y., Zhang, C.-F., Zhao, J.-H., 2009. Review on multi-criteria
decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 13, 2263–2278, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021.
Wedley, W.C., 1990. Combining qualitative and quantitative factors—an analytic
hierarchy approach. Socioecon. Plann. Sci. 24, 57–64.
Wellinger, A., Murphy, J.D., Baxter, D. (Eds.), 2013, 1st ed. Woodhead Publishing,
Oxford.