Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions

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

Original Research Paper

Lessons from Bali for small-scale biogas development in Indonesia

Mariana Silaena,*, Richard Taylorb, Stefan Bößnerc, Annela Anger-Kraavie,
Unnada Chewpreechad, Alessandro Badinottia, Takeshi Takamaa,b
a
su-re.co (Sustainability and Resilience), Jl. Dalem Gede no. 25 Badung, Bali, 80351, Indonesia
b
Stockholm Environment Institute Oxford Centre, Florence House, 29 Grove Street, Oxford, OX2 7JT, UK
c
Stockholm Environment Institute HQ, Linnégatan 87D, 115 23 Stockholm, Sweden
d
Cambridge Econometrics, Reuben House, Covent Garden, Cambridge CB1 2HT, UK
e
University of Cambridge, The Old Schools, Trinity Ln, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UK

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Being dependent on fossil fuels, Indonesia faces challenges in incorporating renewables into its
Household biogas energy supply, which hampers to achieve the NDC target of 26% emission reduction. We in-
Social discourses vestigate how biogas could contribute to a low-carbon transition pathway as cooking fuel,
Macroeconomic impact especially through the national mid-term development planning. Using mixed-methods and
Policy engagement
stakeholder engagement, we conducted transdisciplinary research to advance knowledge on
biogas in Indonesia. We used Q-methodology to explore the ambiguity around biogas develop-
ments leading us to identify three “perspectives” regarding value on biogas: technology, co-
benefits, and independence. Quantitative research using the E3ME model identified economic
benefits of biogas, but also an increase in LPG use due to unstable feedstock availability (hence
intermittent biogas production), which could cause a potential increase of national CO2 emis-
sions. Those and other barriers including ill-adapted technology to local conditions and barriers
to financing installations require sound policies to be overcome, focusing on co-benefits of
biogas.

1. Introduction

Indonesia, a country of around 250 million people and the world’s 8th largest emitter of greenhouse gases (excluding emissions
from LULUCF), faces a dilemma common to many emerging economies. How to assure continued economic development and
growth—which has been at around 5% since 2000 (World Bank, 2017)—while at the same time reduce emissions and adopt a
sustainable development pathway?
As party to the Paris Agreement, Indonesia has an emission reduction target of 29% (41% with international help) by 2030.
Indonesia is also a nation with abundant renewable energy resources (IRENA, 2017) and its National Energy Plan of 2017 mandates
the share of renewables in the energy mix to increase to 23% by 2025. However, Indonesia has been benefitting handsomely from its
fossil fuel reserves. The country is the world’s 5th largest coal producer and has considerable oil and gas reserves (BP, 2018) which
present an important stream of revenue for the government. Before the fall of the oil price in 2014, for example, Indonesia’s oil and
gas industry accounted for 14% of the government’s revenues (PwC, 2018). A continued reliance on fossil fuels jeopardizes In-
donesia’s full compliance with these climate mitigation and energy targets.
This paper explores how Indonesia could pivot to a more sustainable energy pathway and what role biogas used as cooking fuel

⁎
Corresponding author at: Jl. Dalem Gede no. 25 Badung, Bali, Indonesia.
E-mail addresses: marianaoctaviana@gmail.com, mariana.silaen@su-re.co (M. Silaen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.09.003
Received 17 September 2018; Received in revised form 28 August 2019; Accepted 11 September 2019
2210-4224/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: Mariana Silaen, et al., Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.09.003
M. Silaen, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

could play in this pathway. Our transdisciplinary approach combined local stakeholder engagement in Bali with the involvement of
national-level policymakers to understand barriers and enablers from multiple angles. Indeed, views from policy makers and tech-
nology adopters were at the heart of this research. Top-down and bottom-up methods each contributed to further our understanding.
Our case study, Bali, offers potential insights because the adoption of biogas was promoted by four different programs with various
financing schemes (see Bößner et al., 2019 and Devisscher et al., 2017). Moreover, besides tourism, Bali’s agricultural sector is one of
the main sources of income in the province, and is an important livelihood for many of its rural residents.

1.1. Indonesia’s policy context

Policy making in Indonesia has to take into account a multi-ethnic and pluri-linguistic citizenry, spread across up to 17,000
islands with large disparities in wealth depending on the region (OECD, 2016). In order to account for this diversity, Indonesia
decentralized its policy after the fall of the Suharto regime in 1998 (Aspinall and Fealy, 2003). Nowadays there are about 77,000
national and sub-national government units, thus potentially proving inconducive to stringent policy making by raising the number of
veto players (Tsebelis, 1995) and slowing down implementation of policies due to a cumbersome bureaucracy.
Decentralization usually involves introducing national goals as a reference for sub-national policymaking, while at the same time
taking into consideration interests of local authorities (Luttrell et al., 2014). Normally, policies are made either by the president
directly or by ministries, taking advice from other institutions such as special councils. In the energy sector, for instance, the National
Energy Council plays the key advisory role alongside the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR). Decisions taken by the
president are implemented at the provincial and local level.
Another important player is the Ministry of National Planning (BAPPENAS) which oversees national infrastructure developments
and climate-relevant legislation. BAPPENAS also formulates and oversees budgetary allocations, for instance through its national long
(RPJPN) and medium term (RPJMN) development plan. Those plans are essential for mainstreaming national energy and climate
policies (such as the National Mitigation Action plan, RAN-GRK for instance) into the country’s overall development. The next
RPJMN (2020–2024) is expected to tackle the trilemma of energy security, energy equity and environmental sustainability (BAP-
PENAS, 2018). In the Balinese context, the RAN-GRK in 2012 had 3 sectoral focuses, namely land use, energy, and waste management
(BAPPENAS, 2014a). Under the energy sector, the province of Bali had successfully reduced 640 tons of CO2e in 2014 (BAPPENAS,
2014b).
However, those two (and other) planning instruments do not seem to be well aligned. While some policies and legal acts are
meant to increase the share of renewable energy, others also favor fossil fuel developments which are very likely not in line with the
country’s Paris Agreement commitments. Indeed, this tension between fossil fuel-based development and climate mitigation actions
has been a staple of Indonesian policy making during recent years. For example, the LPG subsidy scheme targets residents who use
kerosene as cooking fuel. It aims at helping them shift to LPG, even in the most remote areas (Thoday et al., 2018). However, weak
regulation has redirected this policy to benefit the households with higher income (Toft et al., 2016).
In the same vein, many state-owned energy players such as PLN (electricity quasi-monopolist), PGN (largest gas distributor), and
PT Pertamina (national oil and energy company) are responsible for implementing the government’s policy in energy production and
distribution across the country (Devisscher et al., 2017). Despite a recent drop due to the volatility of oil prices and declining
production, those companies’ revenues still present a major force in the economy of Indonesia (Braithwaite and Gerasimchuk, 2019).
The commitment to fossil fuel energy sources and the economic importance of those players could hinder the uptake and diffusion of
renewable off-grid solutions thus making meeting Indonesia’s NDC target unlikely (Bridle et al., 2018).
But favoring fossil fuels over renewable energies is a missed opportunity since Indonesia has a huge renewable energy potential.
According to IRENA (2017), this potential amounts to up to 726 GW compared to the country’s current 55 GW power capacity
(renewables and fossil fuels combined) (Cornot-Gandolphe, 2017). While solar PV technology has the most potential, biomass offers
the second largest potential: 32.7 GW (IRENA, 2017). In Bali, the bioenergy potential is estimated to be 191.6 MW, with almost
45 MW of biogas (Government of Indonesia, 2017). Therefore, bioenergy could play a key role in delivering on Indonesia’s inter-
national climate mitigation obligations and provides a sustainable energy solution in the province of Bali.

1.2. Bioenergy transition pathways in Indonesia

Bioenergy can play an important role in contributing to a low-carbon energy transition. A transition pathway is a description of
how such a transition might unfold, which includes technological innovations implemented in an existing or new market, policy
interventions that shape how this technology is used and the social setting where their consequences are felt and support or op-
position is determined (Lieu et al., 2019). Bioenergy pathways that are feasible in Indonesia include (biomass) bioethanol for
transportation (Junne and Kabisch, 2017); or biomass to biogas that involves anaerobic digestion in a fixed dome-like structure, the
“bio-digester”, yields products such as biogas or biomethane (Qiao et al., 2011). On a household level, biogas can be generated by
feeding crop waste and manure into smaller digesters and used as cooking fuel or for lighting small lamps. On a larger scale, biogas
can be used for electrification purposes. Another option is using biomass in solid products such as wood pellets to generate electricity
(Siregar et al., 2017). These bioenergy pathways are especially relevant for the agricultural sector. Indonesia, where nearly one-third
of its citizens work as farmers mainly residing in rural areas (FAO, 2018; Badan Pusat Statistik, 2017), might benefit greatly.
However, while those pathways offer some significant benefits such as emission reductions or economic co-benefits for users, they
face several barriers and risks.
Our case study Bali is home to four biogas programs; three of them implemented by governmental agencies (i.e. Bali provincial

2
M. Silaen, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Concrete or fixed-dome biogas digester (left; Yayasan Rumah Energi, 2019) and PVC digester (right; su-re.co, 2018).

government, Agency of Public Works, and West Bali National Park) and another program, BIRU, implemented by the NGO Yayasan
Rumah Energi (YRE). While government-run programs are based on a subsidy principle (farmers received the installations and the
livestock for free), the BIRU program involved a market-based approach, where farmers are obliged to pay a share of installation
costs. Interestingly, the BIRU program has had greater take-up than fully subsidized programs and participants had greater sense of
“ownership” of the technology (Bößner et al., 2019; Nugraha et al., 2018).
In our own research, for which partial results were previously published (see Bößner et al., 2019; Silaen et al., 2019; Devisscher
et al., 2017) we identified several shortcomings of these biogas programs. The biogas technology was adapted neither to the local
climate nor to the user needs; for example, underground concrete digesters (Fig. 1, left) were prone to cracks during seasonal changes.
In addition, maintenance services and training of the users were inadequate and led to the situation where many digesters were
unused after installation. Recent initiatives have tried to mitigate those shortcomings. For example, PVC digesters developed by su-
re.co (Fig. 1, right), have been used in Bali by farmers to address the shortcomings of fixed-dome, concrete digesters (Fig. 1, left). PVC
is said to be cheaper and is well-suited to the alternating wet and dry seasons (Wahyudi et al., 2015; Cheng et al., 2013). In the
subsequent sections we expand and complement our earlier research by focusing on further socio-cultural and economic factors,
national-level results and wider scales of action.
Section 2 of this paper introduces the mixed-method approach which was chosen for this investigation and describes how a mixed-
method approach can help to uncover new information about energy transitions. Section 3 presents the results followed by a dis-
cussion of the lessons learned and the limitations of each method. Section 4 presents some recommendations and concluding remarks.

2. Methods

2.1. Mixed method approaches to understand the potential of transitions

A wide range of methods are appropriate to understanding the risks and potential for transition (e.g. Lieu et al., 2019; Bachner
et al., 2018; Nikas et al., 2018). We applied three methods to enhance the existing picture of user behavior, macro-economic benefits,
risks, and opportunities. In this transdisciplinary research, we use approaches combining macroeconomic modeling together with
local perspectives and social discourse methods, in addition to policy dialogues with Indonesian policy makers (see Table 1).
Transdisciplinary research interlinks scientific knowledge production processes with the development of solutions for addressing
current societal issues or challenges (Pohl et al., 2017; Polk, 2015). At the first workshop (see Table 1) we engaged stakeholders in the
formulation of the research problem around bioenergy pathways that were deemed to be most relevant and able to secure high levels
of stakeholder interest and support. The participants helped to suggest and frame current biogas activities in Bali. One of the main
challenges emerging (from an inclusive mode of knowledge production) was different framings of the activities and assessments of
the solutions among the stakeholders, which meant there was a lack of consensus on several points (see 2.2). Similar challenges are
frequently noted in transdisciplinary research (Brandt et al., 2013; Lang et al., 2012; Pohl et al., 2017). We also initiated a parti-
cipatory stakeholder mapping exercise (see Schiffer and Hauck, 2010) to further understand actors with power and agency over how
decisions are made.
BAPPENAS, a key partner in the research, requested knowledge about biogas risks and opportunities to inform Indonesia’s na-
tional development plan (RPJMN), which led to the inclusion of the HLSD (high-level stakeholder dialogue) method in the research
design (see 2.4). The HLSDs involved a number of activities where the levels/intensities of participation are both considered as
“informing” (e.g. risk assessment activities) and “collaborative” (e.g. discussions on findings and model scenarios; Brandt et al., 2013;
Krütli et al., 2010). We found challenges in organizing multiple activities in HLSDs given the twin role of stakeholders as both
“informants” and “collaborative” partners, and in the tension between the different objectives, namely validating research findings,
gaining inputs to produce research findings and providing appropriate findings for the policymakers. The scientific findings, however,

3
M. Silaen, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Timeline of selected mixed-method activities on biogas assessment in Indonesia, together with their outputs and stakeholders
involved.

might be useful for policymaking as long as they are used with caution and tailored to the needs of policymakers.
Q-methodology was selected to investigate a consensus (or the lack thereof) around biogas. It builds directly on participants’
understanding of the subject and collects qualitative data in a “bottom-up” way to detect and interpret the stakeholder viewpoints
that characterize different worldviews on biogas, which is then statistically analyzed. Q-methodology has been used within multi-
stage, mixed method research by Cuppen et al. (2010) to facilitate selection of participants for a stakeholder dialogue and as a
structured-output participatory method, which supports stakeholder learning by inviting reflection and critique of knowledge outputs
(Forrester et al., 2015).
We then employed an E3ME (Energy-Environment-Economy Macro-econometric) model to investigate the impacts of two small-
scale biodigester deployment pathways for the Indonesian economy. Macroeconomic modeling has been widely used by national

4
M. Silaen, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

governments for policymaking and planning purposes, particularly for the simulation of different policy instruments under multiple
scenarios and for economic forecasting (Barker et al., 2012; Mills and Patterson, 2009) and been coupled with another method to
evaluate environmental policies (e.g. Anger et al., 2016).
Finally, we were privileged to have access to policymakers themselves, who provided their own perspective on the biogas
pathways. Policymaker views are often only inferred in governance research due to limited engagement opportunities. We used a
method we developed called “high-level stakeholder dialogues” (HLSDs) in order to collaborate with national stakeholders in par-
ticipatory research. This is based on the concept of policy dialogues–a research method but also a process for focusing on entry points
for research into policy and planning. Policy dialogues could potentially be powerful for policy development and knowledge ex-
change that can help strengthen a number of systems in the governance and sustainability (Damani et al., 2016).

2.2. Q-methodology

Qualitative research involved interviews, surveys, and focus group discussions (Fig. 2, Step I). These activities provided data that
were combined with a literature review to provide a broad social discourse on biogas development. In the following step (Step II), a
set of statements representing this discourse were selected for use in the Q sort exercises. A total of 49 statements covered social and
economic aspects as well as issues related to technological deployment (i.e. expectations, interests, pressures, and appropriability). In
a subsequent workshop, 19 stakeholders scored all statements (performed a q-sort). Stakeholders selected to bring a diversity of
experiences and allow actors with different knowledge on biogas adoption to contribute. Participants arranged statements written on
cards into columns numbered from -3 (strong disagreement) to +3 (strong agreement). We used a rectangular (7 × 7) grid in order to
simplify the administration of the activity. Usually q sorts are performed in a one-to-one setting with the participant but in our case,
we conducted them with small groups of participants.
The outputs (the set of 19 q-sorts) were later digitized, and then statistically analyzed using an inverted form of factor analysis
(Step III). This reduced the dimensionality of the dataset to a small number of main (but varied) positions or factors. It also provides
information about which respondents “fit” which position—a potential measure of how different stakeholders are aligned to a
common perspective (Step IV).
After the factors were identified, we conducted a validation of results through further stakeholder engagement (Step V). First, we
presented the preliminary result in the HLSD (see below) to obtain feedback and critique on the findings. Second, we assessed the
extent of the alignment with the results with a further group of 9 stakeholders (mainly farmers but including one NGO and one
business sector representative) who had not been part of the original workshop. This was conducted separately during a further
workshop. We developed storylines to describe multiple perspectives on the system that could co-exist as partial truths. We then
asked whether participants felt they “aligned” with any of the perspectives or whether none of these adequately reflected their views
on biogas.

2.3. E3ME model

We deploy the post-Keynesian energy-environment-economy (E3) macro-econometric model (E3ME).1 Economic growth in E3ME
is demand-driven and supply-constrained, with no assumption of the economy being in full-employment equilibrium. Empirically
validated dynamics (the time path of an economy) is a key feature of E3ME. The world economy is treated as an open system of
interacting economies with different levels of unemployment and financial imbalances. In order to implement the institutional aspect
of economics, namely that economic activity is highly specific to location and timing, the model is disaggregated into 59 world
regions including Indonesia (which allows for a study of the impacts of Indonesian domestic climate policies) and 43–69 industrial
sectors in each region. E3ME covers 14 atmospheric pollutants (GHGs and non-GHGs) from 50 emission sources. When specific
scenarios are run in the model, results show changes in national GDP and the aggregate components of GDP, consumer prices and
expenditures, sectoral employment, energy demand, CO2 emissions by sector and by fuel and other airborne emissions. E3ME can be
used for both forecasting and for evaluating the impacts of an input shock through a scenario-based analysis. The shock could be for
example a change in policy or a change in economic assumptions. Climate policies were explored using global decarbonization
scenarios that also built on green investment and sectoral scenarios in Anger et al. (2016) and Barker et al. (2012).

2.4. High level stakeholder dialogues

Officials from BAPPENAS were engaged in earlier stakeholder-centered research forming part of a four-year project, reported in
Devisscher et al. (2017) and Bößner et al. (2019). BAPPENAS requested support from the research team to incorporate these findings
on biogas pathways in Bali for Indonesia’s forthcoming RPJMN. Subsequently (in 2017 and 2018) the project established multiple
interactive dialogues with BAPPENAS, complemented by evaluations from each meeting. Other policy and private sector stakeholders
in energy planning and implementation also participated such as representatives from PLN and MEMR (see Table 1).
The HLSDs pursued three objectives. First, to present and validate research findings, second to gain additional inputs from a high-
level perspective, and third to assist the policy makers to incorporate biogas into the RPJMN by providing research findings. To gain
perspectives of risks on biogas, we divided the participants into two focus groups to dig deeper into issues raised by conducting risk

1
For the full description of the model and its main assumptions and equation see E3ME manual (www.e3me.com).

5
M. Silaen, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 2. Simplified visualization of the q-methodology step-by-step activities. Step I represents the qualitative data collection methods, which is
followed by Step II as a quantitative follow up activity. The outputs are statistically analyzed in Step III, which produced a number of factors to
represent perspective groups. Step IV is to identify tensions and alignments among factors in order to form suitable policy considerations. Step V is
essential to validate the existence of the different perceptions among the stakeholders.

ranking. Group 1’s composition was 3 representatives from BAPPENAS and 4 from MEMR. In group 2, we had 1 from BAPPENAS, 3
from MEMR, and 1 from PLN. Groups were invited to self-organize with the stipulation that where multiple participants were
representing a ministry or organization, at least one should join each group. We presented a set of existing barriers in biogas
deployment based on our then-ongoing research and asked groups to rank these barriers after having discussed and agreed this
collectively. Participants were allowed to state additional barriers that they perceived important before ranking the list (complete
barriers have been discussed in Silaen et al., 2019).
All HLSDs took place in government offices in Jakarta, Indonesia and were co-convened by scientists and government officers. The
knowledge exchange was a main component of the transdisciplinary research approach. Initial meetings were oriented to presenting
research findings. Subsequent meetings were organized around focus group discussions. We chose the HLSD format to meet pre-
ferences of policy participants. According to Datta et al. (2016), when considering research-based knowledge, policy and decision-
makers in Indonesia prefer face-to-face research meetings, telephone conversations or focus group discussions (FGDs) and seminars/
workshops rather than having the research in physical formats (e.g. journal articles, reports, etc.).

3. Result and discussion

3.1. Social discourse analysis

We identified three factors or perspectives on biogas uptake potential. The differences reflect epistemic uncertainty around biogas
due to different frames of knowledge that stakeholders align with. The perspectives explained much of the variance among parti-
cipants’ views, and each could quite clearly be identified and interpreted in our case. We discuss the distinguishing statements of each
perspective and the alignment of participants. We also label each one to reflect the overall position regarding biogas deployment. The
profile of participants who belong to each factor can be seen in Table 2 and the complete list of statements and their scoring in Table
A1.
Perspective 1: “Technically sound and achievable at small scale through government coordination.”
Perspective 1 (P1) emphasized the technical aspects of biogas making it suitable, agreeing strongly that technical drawbacks could
be overcome (6). They disagreed that energy alternatives such as firewood (22) or large-scale biogas (47) could offer greater benefits.
Respondents in this group were also concerned with the wider picture of land availability limitations (49) (possibly tied to their
doubts about large-scale biogas production). Government involvement and good decision-making were considered to be crucial
(24,7) with monitoring and maintenance as part of this role, stressing the need for longer guarantees (17).
The most representative of this perspective were an NGO and a private sector participant, and it also included several researchers.
Considering this, and the positive attitude to small-scale biogas, our interpretation is that this perspective may be based on advocacy

Table 2
Q-methodology participants categorized by occupation and alignment with 3 factors (perspectives). One participant aligned with no factor (un-
loaded).
Sector Total Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Unloaded

Regional government 1 1
Provincial government 4 1 2 1
NGO 3 2 1
Cooperative 1 1
Private sector 1 1
Farmer 6 1 3 1 1
University researcher 3 2 1

6
M. Silaen, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

for biogas installations. It is shared by some participants who have extensive field experiences and focus on training and helping
farmers to obtain and utilize biogas. Earlier research in Bali identified this “enabler” role to be mainly situated within YRE, MEMR
and university research groups (Devisscher et al., 2017).
In policy terms, P1 suggests that government should prioritize small-scale biogas actions. Building support for these actions across
government departments and with private or third sector partners could draw on a technology-focused rationalistic argument that
considers biogas to be technically sound and achievable at small-scale. Rationalistic views were also held towards how funds should
be spent: farmers’ access to feedstock and technical knowledge of biogas should be important (7), whilst family ties and knowing the
right people was unimportant when attributing grants (26). However, in view of criticism of the monitoring and maintenance (17), it
is important that government-funded programs invest in both the installation and the maintenance adequately in order to minimize
the technical barriers in biogas projects (6, 24).
Perspective 2: “A double win for the community: clean energy with agricultural benefits”.
Perspective 2 (P2) was pro-communal biogas, disagreeing strongly that it brings stress to the community, is complicated to deploy
(30), and is less preferred to individual installations (25). It argued that biogas was not so advantageous in relation to the effort
required to produce it, especially because it is limited to certain types of cooking (11,12).
On the other hand, P2 agreed that communal biogas units are acceptable to local people because they see biogas as something
useful (28). This suggests the importance of other benefits beyond energy. P2 connected biogas issues to agricultural development on
the community scale, arguing that biogas could be financed through agriculture (18), and therefore bioenergy should primarily aim
to support the agricultural sector. They agreed that a potentially important benefit of biogas programs was in providing organic
fertilizer (10) which could also help them financially (18): a “double win”.
Politically, P2 was the most receptive to larger-scale biogas actions (47) (in contrast with the other two perspectives), but only if
other benefits were also gained. It was critical of the government’s current focus on—and investment in—individual installations,
partly because they are less scale-efficient (11,12). However, P2 was uncritical of the implementation of government schemes. For
instance, they disagreed strongly that women have been overlooked (23), that the guarantee and monitoring period for government
supplied biodigesters is too short (17), and that contracted installers do a poor job (33).
One provincial government officer/researcher and one provincial government (2) who were the most representative, plus one
cooperative, three farmers, and one university researcher. Our interpretation is that P2 has a more idealized and theoretical per-
spective on biogas. This perspective was the only one to agree strongly about the importance of support of international agencies (44)
suggesting connections to international development efforts and NGOs. This may also be related to a perceived lack of readiness of
the business sector (20). Earlier research identified business challenges for development programs in providing credit schemes for
biogas stoves (BIRU, 2018; The World Bank, 2013).
Perspective 3: “Able to promote ownership and independence through individual installations”.
Perspective 3 (P3) was distinguished by its strong agreement with a statement about biogas giving people independence (39)—a
statement we made deliberately vague. We interpret it (on the basis of interview analysis) firstly, as independence from the need to
buy LPG or to collect firewood, the main alternative cooking fuels to biogas, which could free up time or resources for other activities.
Secondly, the independence to install and maintain biogas systems without government assistance was valued. “Complicated bu-
reaucracy” was a barrier, and the added complexity of rules and relationships embedded in collective management of biogas. Thus,
what was most valued in P3 was individual ownership and management (25).
P3 strongly disagreed with the statement that LPG is preferred to biogas (21). This is likely to be linked to the perceived high cost
of LPG (although no further results about LPG are available). Also concerning financing, P3 disagreed that reducing the price of
biogas installations by half was sufficient to incentivize take-up (16). P3 was also found to have weak agreement with the idea of
banks providing farmers with credit (36). These results suggest that biodigesters might need to become much cheaper and/or loans
more easily accessible for farmers to purchase biodigesters without government assistance. In fact, one of the consensus views shared
across all three perspectives was that without subsidies farmers would be able to afford biogas (15). However, it is doubtful if this is
the reality currently for most farmers (one farmer interviewed had suggested he could pay around 25% of the cost).
Few participants aligned with P3; the most representative belonged to an NGO. In contrast to P2, P3 agreed that communal biogas
installations were not helpful to farmers (48) and induced higher stress in the community (30). However, P3 held very positive
attitudes to individual biodigesters (25), which may be attributed to experiences of benefiting from biogas for several years.
According to P3, the business sector is ready to support biogas installation (20) and there are lots of potential for new businesses.
Although local prior knowledge exists (3), finding skilled laborers for large-scale feedstock processing and biogas production business
is difficult (35). In this light, government focus on market-based development policies and actions might be more effective than
schemes that rely almost exclusively on government support. This is in contrast to P1 which envisioned a much larger role for
government.

3.2. Macroeconomic impacts of biogas deployment and future emission

With E3ME we assessed two uptake scenarios for small-scale bio-digesters for cooking to replace firewood based on inputs
received from the workshop and HLSD in April 2018. We used the baseline data where there had been an increase of installations of
over 74 thousand by the end of 2017 from about 236 installations in 2009 (see Table A2 for annual calculation). The first scenario
(low) assumes that the number of small-scale bio-digesters will increase gradually (6000 installations per year up to 2025 and after
that 12,000 installations per year) from 2018 and reach slightly more than 176 thousand in 2030. The second (high) scenario assumes
this number will reach about 750 thousand for all of Indonesia in 2030 assuming fewer barriers to the adoption of biogas and that the

7
M. Silaen, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 3. Number of new biogas digesters installed in low and high case scenarios per year.

number of installations doubles every 2–4 years, reaching 750 thousand in 2030 (Fig. 3). Two versions of each scenario were
modelled—one where the farmers themselves fully pay for their digesters (high, low scenarios) and another one where the digesters
are given to them funded by foreign aid (high_noCR, low_nCR scenarios).
Based on stakeholder discussions we also assume that up to 2019 only fixed-dome digesters are installed and after that only PVC
digesters are installed. We assume that PVC digesters will be replaced every 5 years and that fixed dome digesters installed before
2019 will be replaced in 10 years by PVC digesters. The cost of a PVC biodigester with installation is assumed to be EUR 370 and for a
fixed-dome digester EUR 550 (in 2017 prices). From 2019 to 2030, approximately EUR 148 and 460 million (in 2017 values) of
investment is needed in the case of the low and high scenario respectively.
Stakeholders from BAPPENAS were also concerned about the volatility of biogas supply (see Section 3.3). Volatility is caused by
insufficient feedstock and poor maintenance of digesters. According to the statement from YRE, the biogas from small-scale digesters
(of 4 m3 capacity) would need to be supplemented by LPG (0.9 m3 per year), and this assumption was incorporated into the model.
We assume that biogas will not substitute any fossil fuels used by households, which in reality does not have to be the case. Indeed,
fieldwork revealed that some farmers were actually using less LPG since installing the digester (in addition to using less fire-
wood)–depending on the farmer’s context and needs.

3.2.1. Future CO2 emissions for low and high scenarios

When the biogas production needs to be supplemented by LPG in order to meet energy demand by households, this will result in
an increase in Indonesian CO2 emissions of up to 0.18% in 2030 compared to the baseline scenario for the low and high diffusion
scenario respectively (Fig. 4). Here, the baseline scenario is when biogas is used 100% without being complemented by LPG. For this
reason, the potential increase of CO2 needs to be kept in mind while designing Indonesian emission reduction policies promoting
diffusion of small-scale biodigesters. When farmers do not pay for their digesters (high_noCR, low_noCR) then the emissions are
slightly higher due to emissions attributable to spending less on other goods and services they use this money for. It is also worth
noting that removing subsidies from LPG would discourage LPG use and avoid these additional emissions.

3.2.2. Macroeconomic impacts for low and high scenarios

The comparisons between high and low scenarios in 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Table 3. The macroeconomic effects of
both scenarios are rather small in 2020 (Table 3; Fig. 5), because the additional investment in bio-digesters is still low compared to
the size of the Indonesian economy (EUR 5.4 and 7.6 million of 2017 value for low and high scenarios). In addition, due to lack of
data, E3ME scenarios do not incorporate the additional gains that could be generated by using bio-slurry (a byproduct of biogas
production) as fertilizer. The high-diffusion scenario assumes fewer barriers to the adoption of biogas and results in higher mac-
roeconomic impacts in 2030 compared to the low diffusion scenario.
Results show that Indonesian GDP increases by about 0.03% by 2030 due to an extra investment in bio-digesters in the high
diffusion scenario (Fig. 6). The investment also generates new jobs (7 thousand new jobs or 0.006% increase in employment com-
pared to baseline in the high diffusion scenario in 2030). The very small decrease in Indonesian exports (e.g. 0.003% in 2030 for the
high diffusion scenario) comes from a small increase in domestic prices induced by additional demand for goods and services.
It is important to consider how biodigesters are financed. If consumer spending on other products is reduced in order to invest in
bio-digesters (scenarios Low and High), it will likely result in lower increases in GDP than shown above and can result in decrease in

8
M. Silaen, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 4. Projection on CO2 emission within low and high (with and without CR) household biogas installation scenarios, in percentage of difference
from baseline.

Table 3
Changes in macroeconomic variables and CO2 emissions for low and high biogas installation scenarios (% difference from baseline) in 2020 (top)
and 2030 (bottom). NoCR means that consumers do not themselves pay for the digesters.
2020

Low High Low_noCR High_noCR

GDP 0.0022 0.0031 0.0035 0.0048

Employment 0 −0.0001 0.0004 0.0006
Investment 0.0135 0.0189 0.0153 0.0209
Imports 0.0011 0.0017 0.0021 0.003
Exports −0.0004 −0.0002 −0.0004 −0.0003
Consumer spending −0.0018 −0.0026 0.0004 0.0005

2030

Low High Low_noCR High_noCR

GDP 0.0026 0.0083 0.007 0.0294

Employment −0.0025 −0.0008 −0.0007 0.0055
Investment 0.0177 0.0972 0.0222 0.1184
Imports −0.0004 0.002 0.0025 0.015
Exports 0.0019 −0.0031 0.0021 −0.0006
Consumer spending −0.0066 −0.0307 0.0011 0.0039

employment (Fig. 6). The latter occurs because of withdrawing resources from other more labor-intensive production sectors. In
addition, there might be a slight increase in imports to Indonesia that is mostly induced by indirect increased economic activity in
other sectors than agriculture and a small increase in domestic prices.

3.3. High-level stakeholder dialogues

During early rounds of HLSDs we focused on identifying gaps in knowledge, validation, and generating inputs for E3ME scenarios
described above. These activities were followed by risk ranking activities conducted by two groups.
Group 1 was concerned the most with needs assessment, such as identifying the right beneficiaries and whether or not the tech-
nologies fit their current needs and conditions. They suggested that installations were too small in size for the number of users in the case
of SIMANTRI project. They agreed with a previously identified barrier that the biogas installations were often not adapted to the needs of
users and local climate conditions as mentioned in Bößner et al. (2019) and Silaen et al. (2019). One BAPPENAS officer acknowledged
that not all places in Indonesia are suitable for biogas like in Bali. She argued that some provinces like East Nusa Tenggara (NTT) as semi-
arid areas would be challenging to deploy biogas due to the limited availability of water to support biogas usage.

9
M. Silaen, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 5. Summary of macroeconomic impacts in 2020.

Fig. 6. Summary of macroeconomic impacts in 2030.

Furthermore, Group 1 considered high initial investment (e.g. the government budget) to be an important risk factor in biogas
deployment. The government has some in-house modelling capacities and evaluation methods expertise, but they are still testing
various approaches for costing of investment. The assumption underlying the investment risk discussion was that biodigesters would
continue to be fully subsidized, because this has been the norm in Bali governmental programs (BIRU is the only part-subsidized
program, but it is not a governmental one). However, the participants argued that without a biogas strategy and supporting actions,
such investment may not be effective. Reflecting in part these concerns about value-for-money, there is an acknowledgement among
policy stakeholders that biogas is currently not a main priority among renewable energy alternatives, hence low deploy-
ment—compared to, for instance, hydro-power and geothermal (Arinaldo et al., 2018)—despite the recognition of biogas benefits.
Consequently, biogas programs do not acquire a significant proportion of the budget.
This group also focused on the inclusion of biogas into the next RPJMN. According to them, technological advancement can only
be accelerated once the policy framework is established; otherwise biogas development will continue to be hampered by several
barriers. For example, one barrier is that biogas is seen as a short-term project in terms of the durability of the programs and their
funding. Policymaking can help ensure biogas works sustainably. One participant suggested integrating biogas with the national

10
M. Silaen, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

mandate on waste treatment for manure—as mentioned in RAN-GRK and the national constitution (Government of Indonesia, 2008).
Such examples demonstrate that improved policy cohesion can help target multiple goals of climate change mitigation, renewable
energy, and waste management.
Group 2 discussed the difficulties with collective management of biogas, which they saw as the most critical factor hindering
community-based biogas. Equal task division among the community was difficult to achieve. Cases of mismanagement among
community members were described in Devisscher et al. (2017). The labor-intensive nature of biogas surfaced as an important barrier
in both communal and individual installations: participants mentioned the time-consuming waste collection as well as the feedstock
pre-treatment/processing. This group also suggested that some households might be hesitant to adopt biogas because it could be
linked to non-hygienic practices dealing with waste. However, none of our earlier findings confirmed this perception. In addition,
lack of sufficient feedstock to meet household cooking needs was a challenge, thus existing biogas installations were sometimes
underused or could only be used intermittently. The group argued that that volatility could be addressed through well-managed
community-based biogas.
The group also considered marketing to be important. According to them, the low “bankability” of biogas was a barrier. The group
concluded that there is a need to motivate the banking sector to invest in this technology and offer loans for biogas with appropriate
collateral since biogas installations are expensive for farmers. Tailored collateral could enable farmers who do not have land as
collateral to invest in biogas. In relation to this issue the participants also drew conclusions from what they had heard about the BIRU
program. For any biogas program using a market-based approach like BIRU, they thought that the absence of lending policies and
micro-credit schemes for these stakeholders might be a particular risk. Unlike Group 1, Group 2 focused more on addressing mar-
keting issues and the user perspective on financing; they discussed less the policymaking processes. Both groups considered key social
issues and risks like labor, resource access, inequalities and the needs of the community.

3.4. Insights gained and lessons learned from Bali

Four particular lessons that could be drawn from the Bali findings that also proved to hold wider significance and interest for the
national policy stakeholders. First, we gained new insights about the technical aspects of biogas in Bali. P1 in the Q-methodology
analysis recognized that technological issues could be overcome, and this could enhance the potential for biogas adoption. National-
level stakeholders in Group 1 also acknowledged this perspective; however, they cautioned that not all areas in Indonesia are as
suitable as Bali for small-scale biogas using readily available technology and resources. Moreover, we also found that the concrete
dome biogas design was not wholly suited for Indonesia. A cheaper and potentially more suitable design made from PVC was also
tested across sites in Bali, and this design was assumed in E3ME to be available from 2020. Our finding – that there are different
perspectives and lack of consensus around technical aspects of biogas – adds depth to earlier findings. It adds nuance to research
showing that biogas programs were ill-adapted in several ways: monitoring provisions were inadequate, warranty periods were too
short, and once the digesters had been damaged, available repair services training for adopters to repair the damage themselves were
lacking (Bößner et al., 2019; Silaen et al., 2019). These factors proved to be a substantial risk to the bio-digester value chain and led
to the abandonment of many digesters (Devisscher et al., 2017; Indraprahasta and Alamsyah, 2014). By contrast, for P1 these issues
were not so critical as for other stakeholders.
Second, financing and investment risks emerged as a key barrier for actors across the board, from government stakeholders, to
farmers and financial service providers (such as banks). A perspective on the issue of farmers’ self-financing versus part financing
came out in P3, where some farmers mentioned that subsidy was still required, while the others claimed to be able to afford the
biogas. Earlier research showed that of the four programs in Bali, the BIRU program—the one in which farmers had to pay part of the
costs of digesters themselves—had the highest uptake and commitment by the users (Bößner et al., 2019; Nugraha et al., 2018;
Devisscher et al., 2017). In terms of government financing, Group 1 argued that government budgeting constraints for financing
biogas are an important barrier for biogas development. Fully subsidized versus self-financed scenarios were also compared using
E3ME, showing a higher GDP where the government fully finances the biogas (i.e. the noCR scenarios). The financial sector was
discussed in Group 2, focusing on the BIRU program, the underdeveloped role of banks, and the considerable investment risks banks
face. The substance of the discussions confirms earlier research suggesting that banks either did not have an appropriate product for
farming communities (such as microloans), or were reluctant to lend to farmers because of land rights issues that made mortgaging
difficult (Devisscher et al., 2017). Considering the overall investment in the sector, Silaen et al. (2019) identified the tension between
public- and private-sector roles as one of the main uncertainties within biogas development in Indonesia.
Third, co-benefits emerged as an important perspective on the value of biogas. P2 – which was supportive of communal or larger-
scale biogas – contended that farmers could not only save on energy expenditures by using biogas but also monetize other agricultural
products such as organic fertilizer, which is usually a by-product from the biogas process. This confirms earlier research suggesting
that biogas can offer revenue streams in addition to saving energy and money (Bößner et al., 2019; Bedi et al., 2017; Devisscher et al.,
2017). On a macroeconomic level, E3ME suggested that biogas deployment can provide co-benefits through generating up to 7000
new jobs (High_noCR scenario). Improved manure management and feedstock waste management can promote environmental goals,
too – since waste products of both livestock and crop farming are important sources for methane emissions if left untreated in the
fields (Wang et al., 2015; Naser et al., 2007).
Fourth, the volatility of biogas supply could be an important factor affecting potential demand for LPG from biogas adopters.
Many adopters reported volatility caused by intermittent feedstock availability, and, as a result, they were not able to produce
sufficient biogas to meet their needs. P1 considered it important that farmers should have easier access to feedstock, whilst P3
suggested that skilled laborers for managing feedstock are hard to find. Group 2 was very concerned about the impacts of biogas

11
M. Silaen, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

volatility, perceiving this to be a main hindrance. The members of this group highlighted the need for improved community-based
management practices and coordination; this contrasts with the findings of Devisscher et al. (2017) suggesting that such practices
could lead to abandonment as a result of communal mismanagement. The consequences of volatility in household installations – and
the additional LPG use necessary – were investigated using E3ME. It showed that the accompanying LPG could be responsible for a
potential increase of national CO2 emissions.
Each component of the mixed method approach generated different insights, and not all results were in concordance. For ex-
ample, E3ME’s noCR scenarios project more positive macro impacts if biogas digesters were distributed for free. On the other hand,
P3 valued the independence to install biogas without government subsidy, and this aligns with qualitative research suggesting that
subsidized schemes could turn out to be less effective than market-based ones in which farmers feel a greater sense of ownership of
the digesters, and take better care of them (Bößner et al., 2019; Devisscher et al., 2017).
Q-methodology and HLSDs complement each other by identifying disaggregated perspectives found at the local and national
levels. Discourse methods are based on understanding the current social context, values and risks perceived by participants. E3ME
facilitated projections of macro-level impacts of biogas diffusion scenarios over time, for which the other two methods were un-
suitable. Hence, E3ME offers quantitative assessment of consequential risks not otherwise available. Risks identified in the model
could complement those that were discussed in the HLSDs, and that largely stem from implementation challenges and overarching
uncertainties. Q-methodology focused on the social discourse more widely. It brought together different views and data from other
actors (i.e. actors beyond those involved in the dialogues and macro-modeling) and sources to understand the major points of
contention and disagreement around biogas.

3.5. Shortcomings and limitations

3.5.1. Q-methodology
In a participatory setting of stakeholder workshops Q-methodology was challenging to administer, limiting the way researchers
and participants interacted. We offset this challenge through additional group reflection/feedback processes. For example, we asked
participants to explain why they had strong opinions about certain statements and discuss statements with which they strongly
agreed/disagreed among the group. Furthermore, to help communicate the results of the analysis we employed presentation of the q-
factors as narratives, which was conducted as part of a validation of the findings. Further validation is helpful for Q-methodology
because conclusions are otherwise limited to those who participated in the study. Results cannot be easily generalized to other
situations even where the biophysical and market characteristics are similar. A further limitation is that results only help to un-
derstand perspectives on biogas based on the current pathway, but do not reflect how this might shift in future.

3.5.2. E3ME model

E3ME does not incorporate production of bio-digesters as a subsector and only allows for a study at the national level (Indonesia is
a region in E3ME). Hence it misses some of the microlevel details (e.g. barriers to technology uptake, varying uptake levels by region,
or potential additional gains from byproducts like bio-slurry) that need to be covered by micromodels e.g. by diffusion models or by
qualitative methodologies. E3ME also assumes that past behavior is carried on forward and hence changes to it are not automatically
picked-up by the model. It is possible to overcome some of these shortcomings by incorporating the missing detail to E3ME exo-
genously and complementing the information generated by model runs with microlevel economic analysis and qualitative methods.
Hence our study emphasizes the importance of collaboration between scientists deploying varying methods in answering questions
about policy impacts.

3.5.3. High-level stakeholder dialogues

A challenge of transdisciplinarity dialogues was the integration of knowledge at different scales and organizational levels. For
instance, when presenting results of the Bali studies at HLSDs, we needed to frame them as lessons learned from existing biogas
deployment, rather than as a formulation for all of Indonesia. Therefore, one significant shortcoming mentioned by HLSD participants
is the fact that risks are highly subjective and are beyond the scope of the participatory methods to fully assess. Each group then had
to agree on one perspective of sorting the risks. Considering that groups consist of representatives from different organizations and
ministries, participants could have different agendas, and some sensitive topics and participants’ perspectives might not get aired
during the discussions. Furthermore, although the facilitators set a protocol for inclusive interaction and information sharing, some
participants might be less outspoken in the group discussions due to the dominance effect and group think. Dividing the stakeholders
into two groups that represented more than one institution (BAPPENAS, MEMR and PLN) aimed to lessen this risk, as well as building
trust between organizations.

4. Recommendations and conclusions

We make five recommendations for improving biogas deployment in Indonesia. The first four are closely connected to lessons
learned in Bali. Firstly, technological aspects of biogas need more attention. For a wider uptake of biogas, the technology should be
better adapted to local conditions and user needs. Biogas programs should be more carefully monitored, evaluated, and researched,
and users should be more closely involved and consulted in this process at all stages. Such measures may help to strengthen users’
positive experiences with biodigesters. Experimental, lighthouse-type projects in close cooperation with local communities could help
drive technological innovation, build local knowledge, and deliver lessons for feasibility of options.

12
M. Silaen, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Secondly, investment risks need to be managed. Helping farmers afford the high cost of investment in biogas technologies, either
by providing government subsidies or facilitating lending by banks, is a priority. Practical, technical support – such as introducing
low-cost equipment, such as the PVC digesters – is also needed. Other support measures are political in nature. For example, scaling
back LPG subsidies where they compete with biogas is one option, while strengthening renewable energy support policies—by
adopting a biogas target for instance—is another. Banks could have an important role in providing private finance through micro-
loans tailored to farming communities.
A third recommendation is to raise awareness of co-benefits of biogas usage beyond the energy aspect of this technology. Some of
the drawbacks identified above, such as the high costs of biodigesters, may seem less problematic when focusing on co-benefits. These
include employment opportunities, lower health risks from indoor air pollution caused by firewood, and improved agricultural waste
management. Moreover, biogas usually yields some marketable by-products such as organic fertilizer which could be sold on local
markets.
Fourthly, it is important to address the volatility of biogas production. The agencies responsible for the marketing of biogas and
the design and technical aspects of biogas programs should pay particular attention to feedstock issues. Initial evaluations should
establish if farmers have access to sufficient feedstock and capacity for feedstock pre-treatment. Measures such as keeping the cows in
a cowshed for easier manure collection and providing a separate rain-fed water storage for feedstock mixture can offset volatility
risks. Similarly, training could target improved collective management practices including group dynamics, financial literacy,
business skills, and conflict resolution.
A fifth recommendation, based on national perspectives, is to investigate fossil fuel subsidy reform. Indonesia has a strong LPG
subsidy scheme that has not been scaled back to the same extent as those that support other fossil fuels (Thoday et al., 2018). LPG was
subsidized by as much as IDR 40 trillion in 2017 alone (IISD, 2018). Keeping LPG prices artificially low can have a detrimental effect
on biogas development, making it hard for biogas to compete. Fossil fuel subsidy reform, however, is less than straightforward. Van
Asselt et al. (2018) note that the global climate regime hardly addresses fossil fuel subsidies, and as consequence there are few
obligations on countries. To many decision-makers, LPG is a “clean” fuel compared with traditional biomass. LPG lowers indoor
pollution and other environmental risks, whilst having lower emissions compared to other fossil fuels. Subsidy removal also carries
social risks, because some subsidies are critical “safety nets” against excessive energy costs. ADB (2015) suggested that abolishing all
energy subsidies would create additional poverty induced by subsequent inflation. Thus, although any removal of fossil fuel subsidies
may support Indonesia’s clean energy and climate goals, risks associated with various options need to be assessed and carefully
managed to avoid possible negative impacts.
In conclusion, we applied a mixed-method, transdisciplinary approach to investigate how bioenergy can facilitate a low-carbon
transition pathway in Indonesia. Q-methodology emphasized three perspectives on biogas development - technology-led, co-benefit-
led, and independence-centered - also later confirmed in the HLSDs. Macro-econometric modeling was also informed by scenarios co-
created with stakeholders and based on findings from Bali. Results provided further insight and precision on the contribution of the
household biogas pathway to an energy transition. They showed that small-scale biogas could potentially lead to increases in national
GDP and employment. Even though increases are rather small on a national scale, they show a potential positive impact and op-
portunities at the local level.
Although bioenergy has been overlooked in relation to the national fossil fuel industry, in our research we found that biogas has
growing support, both nationally and in Bali Province. The HLSDs provided feedback necessary to link the findings from Bali to
national perspectives and contexts and helped us understand the nationally relevant lessons of that work. National perspectives also
led us to recommend further investigation of fossil fuel subsidy reform. Further research on biogas is also needed to continue
supporting RPJMN planning processes, and beyond this to investigate how biogas might help address Indonesia’s energy “trilemma.”
If the barriers of technology, feedstock and financing methods could be addressed, this would make biogas more financially attractive
to adopters, and, thus, could address energy poverty and at the same time contribute to CO2 emissions reduction.

Acknowledgement

This research was conducted within the framework of the TRANSrisk project, which has received funding from the European
Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 642260.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.09.
003.

References

ADB, 2015. Fossil Fuel Subsidies Indonesia: Trends, Impacts, and Reports. . Retrieved from Asian Development Bank website: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/
files/publication/175444/fossil-fuel-subsidies-indonesia.pdf.
Anger, A., Dessens, O., Xi, F., Barker, T., Wu, R., 2016. China’s air pollution reduction efforts may result in an increase in surface ozone levels in highly polluted areas.
Ambio 45 (2), 254–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0700-6.
Arinaldo, D., Adiatma, J.C., Simamora, P., 2018. Indonesia Clean Energy Outlook: Reviewing 2018, Outlooking 2019. Retrieved from Institute for Essential Services
Reform website: http://iesr.or.id/wp-content/uploads/Indonesia-Clean-Energy-Outlook-2019.pdf.
Aspinall, E., Fealy, G. (Eds.), 2003. Local Power and Politics in Indonesia. Decentralisation and Democratisation. Institute for Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.

13
M. Silaen, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Bachner, G., Wolkinger, B., Mayer, J., Tuerk, A., Steininger, K.W., 2018. Risk assessment of the low-carbon transition of Austria’s steel and electricity sectors. Environ.
Innov. Soc. Transit. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.12.005. S2210422418301412.
Badan Pusat Statistik, 2017. Persentase Rumah Tangga Menurut Provinsi dan Bahan Bakar Utama untuk Memasak Tahun 2001, 2007-2016. Retrieved 2 August 2018,
from https://www.bps.go.id/statictable/2014/09/10%2000:00:00/1364/persentase-rumah-tangga-menurut-provinsi-dan-bahan-bakar-utama-untuk-memasak-
tahun-2001-2007-2016.html.
BAPPENAS, 2014a. Potret Rencana Aksi Daerah Penurunan Emisi Gas Rumah Kaca (RAD-GRK). Retrieved from http://ranradgrk.bappenas.go.id/rangrk/admincms/
downloads/publications/Potret_RAD-GRK.pdf.
BAPPENAS, 2014b. Laporan Dua Tahun Pelaksanaan RAN-GRK dan RAD-GRK. Retrieved from Bappenas website: http://ranradgrk.bappenas.go.id/rangrk/admincms/
downloads/publications/Laporan_Dua_Tahun_Pelaksanaan_RAN-GRK_RAD-GRK.pdf.
BAPPENAS, 2018. Personal communication.
Barker, T., Anger, A., Chewpreecha, U., Pollitt, H., 2012. A new economics approach to modelling policies to achieve global 2020 targets for climate stabilisation. Int.
Rev. Appl. Econ. 26 (2), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/02692171.2011.631901.
Bedi, A.S., Sparrow, R., Tasciotti, L., 2017. The impact of a household biogas programme on energy use and expenditure in East Java. Energy Econ. 68, 66–76. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.09.006.
BIRU, 2018. Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme: January – December 2017 [Annual Report]. . Retrieved from BIRU website: http://www.biru.or.id/files/annual-
report-2017.pdf.
Bößner, S., Devisscher, T., Suljada, T., Ismail, C.J., Sari, A., Mondamina, N.W., 2019. Barriers and opportunities to bioenergy transitions: an integrated, multi-level
perspective analysis of biogas uptake in Bali. Biomass Bioenergy 122, 457–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.01.002.
BP, 2018. BP Statistical Review of World Energy (No. 67). . Retrieved from British Petroleum website: https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/
energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-full-report.pdf.
Braithwaite, D., Gerasimchuk, I., 2019. Beyond Fossil Fuels: Indonesia’s Fiscal Transition [GSI Report]. . Retrieved from International Institute for Sustainable
Development website: https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/beyond-fossil-fuels-indonesia-fiscal-transition.pdf.
Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang, D.J., Newig, J., ... von Wehrden, H., 2013. A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol.
Econ. 92, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008.
Bridle, R., Gass, P., Halimajaya, A., Lontoh, L., McCulloch, N., Petrofsky, E., Sanchez, L., 2018. Missing the 23 Per Cent Target: Roadblocks to the Development of
Renewable Energy in Indonesia [GSI Report]. . Retrieved from International Institute for Sustainable Development website: https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/
files/publications/roadblocks-indonesia-renewable-energy.pdf.
Cheng, S., Li, Z., Mang, H.-P., Huba, E.-M., 2013. A review of prefabricated biogas digesters in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 28, 738–748. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2013.08.030.
Cornot-Gandolphe, S., 2017. Indonesia’s Electricity Demand and the Coal Sector: Export or Meet Domestic Demand? Oxford Institute for Energy Studies., Oxford, UK.
Cuppen, E., Breukers, S., Hisschemöller, M., Bergsma, E., 2010. Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the
Netherlands. Ecol. Econ. 69 (3), 579–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.09.005.
Damani, Z., MacKean, G., Bohm, E., DeMone, B., Wright, B., Noseworthy, T., ... Marshall, D.A., 2016. The use of a policy dialogue to facilitate evidence-informed policy
development for improved access to care: the case of the Winnipeg Central Intake Service (WCIS). Health Res. Policy Syst. 14 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12961-016-0149-5.
Datta, A., Hendytio, M., Perkasa, V., Basuki, T., 2016. The Acquisition of Research Knowledge by National-Level Decision Makers in Indonesia.
Devisscher, T., Johnson, O., Suljada, T., Boessner, S., Taylor, R., Takama, T., ... Yuwono, Y., 2017. D6.2: Report on Social Discourse Analyses and Social Network
Analyses (No. 642260). TRANSrisk.
FAO, 2018. Small Family Farms Country Factsheet: Indonesia (No. I8881EN/1/03.18). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
Forrester, J., Cook, B., Bracken, L., Cinderby, S., Donaldson, A., 2015. Combining participatory mapping with Q-methodology to map stakeholder perceptions of
complex environmental problems. Appl. Geogr. 56, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.019.
Government of Indonesia, 2008. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia tentang Pengelolaan Sampah., Pub. L. No. 18/2008.
Government of Indonesia, 2017. Rencana Umum Energi Nasional., Pub. L. No. 22/2017. Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia.
IISD, 2018. A Review of Developments in Indonesian Energy Subsidy Policy and Energy Markets. Retrieved from International Institute for Sustainable Development
website: https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/gsi-indonesia-news-briefing-january-2018-en.pdf.
Indraprahasta, G.S., Alamsyah, P., 2014. Household-Scale Biogas Support Rural Development? Insight from the Study in Cibodas Village. In: Can Household-Scale
Biogas Support Rural Development? Insight from the Study in Cibodas Village, 5th International Conference and Field Study in Malaysia 2014. Presented at the
Rural Research & Planning Group (RRPG), Bangi, Malaysia.
IRENA, 2017. Renewable Energy Prospects: Indonesia, a REmap Analysis. . Retrieved from International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) website: https://www.
irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2017/Mar/IRENA_REmap_Indonesia_report_2017.pdf.
Junne, S., Kabisch, J., 2017. Fueling the future with biomass: processes and pathways for a sustainable supply of hydrocarbon fuels and biogas. Eng. Life Sci. 17 (1),
14–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.201600112.
Krütli, P., Stauffacher, M., Flüeler, T., Scholz, R.W., 2010. Functional‐dynamic public participation in technological decision‐making: Site selection processes of
nuclear waste repositories. J. Risk Res. 13 (7), 861–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669871003703252.
Lang, D.J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., ... Thomas, C.J., 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice,
principles, and challenges. Sustain. Sci. 7 (S1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x.
Lieu, J., Hanger-Kopp, S., van der Gaast, W., Taylor, R., Dearnley, E., 2019. Transition pathways, risks, and uncertainties. Routledge Studies in Energy Transitions.
Narratives of Low-Carbon Transitions. pp. 247–267. Retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9780429858772.
Luttrell, C., Resosudarmo, I.A.P., Muharrom, E., Brockhaus, M., Seymour, F., 2014. The political context of REDD+ in Indonesia: constituencies for change. Environ.
Sci. Policy 35, 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.001.
Mills, T.C., Patterson, K. (Eds.), 2009. Palgrave Handbook of Econometrics. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244405.
Naser, H.M., Nagata, O., Tamura, S., Hatano, R., 2007. Methane emissions from five paddy fields with different amounts of rice straw application in central Hokkaido,
Japan. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 53 (1), 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0765.2007.00105.x.
Nikas, A., Stavrakas, V., Arsenopoulos, A., Doukas, H., Antosiewicz, M., Witajewski-Baltvilks, J., Flamos, A., 2018. Barriers to and consequences of a solar-based energy
transition in Greece. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.12.004. S221042241830251X.
Nugraha, A., Soetraprawata, D., Heryanto, M.A., Sudiyana, I.R., 2018. Sustainable and self-sufficient farming practices. Sustainable and Self-Sufficient Farming
Practices. pp. 139–144. Retrieved from http://www.biomaterial.lipi.go.id/epub/index.php/procissh/article/view/143.
OECD, 2016. OECD Economic Surveys: Indonesia. OECD Publishing.
Pohl, C., Krütli, P., Stauffacher, M., 2017. Ten reflective steps for rendering research societally relevant. Gaia - Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 26 (1), 43–51. https://doi.org/
10.14512/gaia.26.1.10.
Polk, M., 2015. Transdisciplinary co-production: designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures 65, 110–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.001.
PwC, 2018. Oil and Gas in Indonesia: Investment and Taxation Guide, 9th edition. PT PricewaterhouseCoopers Indonesia, Jakarta.
Qiao, W., Yan, X., Ye, J., Sun, Y., Wang, W., Zhang, Z., 2011. Evaluation of biogas production from different biomass wastes with/without hydrothermal pretreatment.
Renew. Energy 36 (12), 3313–3318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.05.002.
Schiffer, E., Hauck, J., 2010. Net-map: collecting social network data and facilitating network learning through participatory influence network mapping. Field
methods 22 (3), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X10374798.
Silaen, M., Yuwono, Y., Taylor, R., Devisscher, T., Thamrin, S., Ismail, C., Takama, T., 2019. Risks and uncertainties of biogas for electricity and cooking. Narratives of
Low-Carbon Transition. Routledge, London and New York.

14
M. Silaen, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Siregar, U.J., Narendra, B.H., Suryana, J., Siregar, C.A., Weston, C., 2017. Evaluation on community tree plantations as sustainable source for rural bioenergy in
Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/65/1/012019. 65, 012019.
su-re.co, 2018. Our Biogas Digester. Retrieved from Our office projects website: https://su-re.co/sustainable-office-projects/.
The World Bank, 2013. Indonesia: Toward Universal Access to Clean Cooking. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/105441468044144806/
pdf/792790ESW0P1290ox0377371B00PUBLIC00.pdf.
Thoday, K., Benjamin, P., Gan, M., Puzzolo, E., 2018. The Mega Conversion Program from kerosene to LPG in Indonesia: lessons learned and recommendations for
future clean cooking energy expansion. Energy Sustain. Dev. 46, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2018.05.011.
Toft, L., Beaton, C., Lontoh, L., 2016. International Experiences with LPG Subsidy Reform [GSI Report]. Retrieved from International Institute for Sustainable
Development website: https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/international-experiences-with-LPG-subsidy-reform.pdf.
Tsebelis, G., 1995. Decision making in political systems: veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 25 (3),
289–325.
van Asselt, H., Merrill, L., Kulovesi, K., 2018. Fossil fuel subsidies and the global climate regime. In: Skovgaard, J. (Ed.), The Politics of Fossil Fuel Subsidies and their
Reform, 1st ed. pp. 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108241946.010.
Wahyudi, J., Achmad Kurnani, Tb.B., Clancy, J., 2015. Biogas production in dairy farming in Indonesia: a challenge for sustainability. Int. J. Renew. Energy Dev.
(IJRED) 4 (3). https://doi.org/10.14710/ijred.4.3.219-226.
Wang, G., Tan, L., Sun, Z.-Y., Gou, Z.-X., Tang, Y.-Q., Kida, K., 2015. Production of bioethanol from rice straw by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of
whole pretreated slurry using Saccharomyces cerevisiae KF-7. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 34 (2), 582–588. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.11992.
World Bank, 2017. Indonesia Data. Retrieved 14 July 2017, from http://data.worldbank.org/country/indonesia.
Yayasan Rumah Energi. (2019). Retrieved 26 June 2019, from http://www.rumahenergi.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/NOS_2975.jpg.

15