Qualitative study examines ethical challenges of smart metering in biogas systems, emphasizing user-centered design and equity.
This paper is the first to examine the ethical dimensions of integrating smart monitoring technologies into household-scale biogas digesters in Kenya. As the international development sector increasingly turns to digitalisation and “smart” systems to improve energy access, the risks of reinforcing inequities, data exploitation, and marginalisation become more pronounced. In this paper, we explore the ethical dimensions of smart metering for household-scale biogas digesters in Kenya, looking to understand how to ensure that the priorities of the technology's users are a central priority (especially in cases where there is limited knowledge and understanding). Drawing on the Smart Biogas 3: Digesting Data project and a primarily qualitative approach, we connect three interlinked dimensions: expectations shaped by literature on energy justice and responsible innovation; experiences gathered from 33 qualitative interviews with Kenyan farmers; and ethical best practice articulated through a global expert workshop. Findings reveal a divergence between the assumptions of technology developers and the lived realities of users, many of whom perceived limited personal benefit from smart meters while expressing concerns over affordability, data use, and trust. Nevertheless, some users identified opportunities for agency through direct data access. Building on these insights and taking an innovation ecosystems approach, the paper concludes with a three-level operational framework to guide practitioners and policymakers: level 1 aligns technical design with user needs, level 2 addresses adoption and operational challenges, and level 3 manages ethical risks within adjacent systems such as carbon finance. This framework advances a user-centred, participatory model of energy innovation, positioning smart biogas as a pathway to more just, equitable, and sustainable energy futures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robinson et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: