Hanna Fiegenbaum
Bradley Azegele2- 1Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics, and Epidemiology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany
- 2BLCK IOT, Nairobi, Kenya
Decentralized IoT-networks are part of a broader class of decentralized physical infrastructure networks (DePIN), which use blockchain to decentralize, incentivize, and reward the operation and maintenance of technical infrastructure. This study examines how decentralized IoT-networks can address challenges in the design and governance of environmental data streams and reduce adoption barriers for monitoring infrastructure. It draws on the deployment of IoT sensors for measuring environmental variables in a community-based urban restoration project in Nairobi, Kenya. The paper discusses technical features and presents observations on network reliability, reductions in operational costs, accessibility, and community participation. The findings suggest that decentralized IoT systems hold promise for enhancing distributed environmental data collection and transparent multi-party governance, due to significant reductions in operational costs, the potential for fractional income generation, traceable data trails, and inclusive governance mechanisms.
1 Introduction
1.1 IoT in environmental monitoring
Using the Internet-of-Things (IoT) for environmental monitoring involves the deployment of interconnected devices to collect, transmit, and analyze data about the environment. IoT-based environmental monitoring is being applied to various monitoring contexts including urban monitoring of polluting substances and air quality (Addabbo et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2023; Johnson and Woodward, 2025), smart and sustainable farming (Ahmed et al., 2022; Codeluppi et al., 2020; Dhanaraju et al., 2022) and large-scale conservation. IoT-enabled tracking of wildlife in conservation projects covers use cases of monitoring animal movement (Abd-Elrady et al., 2022), supporting ‘virtual fencing’ (Sree et al., 2023), monitoring terrestrial wildlife migration corridors (Kučas et al., 2023), mitigating human-wildlife conflicts (Nandutu et al., 2022; Thangavel and Shokkalingam, 2022) or combining all these data points into an ‘Internet of Animals’ (Kays and Wikelski, 2023). Beyond basic monitoring, IoT-based environmental data streams are increasingly coupled with machine learning and AI applications e.g. Bublitz et al., 2019), for example, for species detection, classification, and pattern recognition from sensor and image data to inform conservation-related decision-making (Beery et al., 2019; Reynolds et al., 2025; Tuia et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2023). Combining real-time monitoring with actuators that act on received signals enables immediate reaction to potential environmental hazards. IoT sensors have therefore been used in settings that require immediate responses such as in forest fire detection and prevention (Kadir et al., 2018; Sharma et al., 2023), and for designing real-time flood early warning systems (Devaraj Sheshu et al., 2018; Yoeseph et al., 2022). Use of the IoT enables remote monitoring of environmental conditions without the need for human presence which is particularly valuable in inaccessible or hazardous areas.
Despite IoT’s many advantages, academic literature identifies several barriers to the adoption of IoT solutions for environmental monitoring. These include operational costs, uncertain payback, a lack of regulations and policy norms, incomplete technical knowledge, and limited internet connectivity and IT infrastructure (Sharma et al., 2020). Environmental protection and conservation has found itself constantly underfunded (White et al., 2022a; White et al., 2022b) and has faced significant budget constraints for technical capacity and monitoring such as for the acquisition of monitoring devices but also internet access and further operational expenses. Additionally, operating IoT devices on centralized networks can involve weak security standards and risk of network failure due to overreliance on a single network provider (Sadique et al., 2018; Taherdoost, 2023). Contracting with a single network provider not only creates dependency on their services but also introduces intransparency in network coverage and operations (Jacobs et al., 2020), along with challenges in ensuring traceable and verifiable environmental data streams from authenticated IoT devices at specific locations for third-party auditing or data origin verification for reporting purposes (Dramé-Maigné et al., 2022). Beyond security, traceability, and transparency challenges, centralized network infrastructure implies concentrated control over network operations and data transmission by a single entity. This becomes increasingly relevant when environmental data pipelines need to comply with data principles that promote participation and collaboration in data governance and distribution of data costs and benefits among multiple stakeholders in alignment with the FAIR principles for data governance (Wilkinson et al., 2016) and with the CARE data principles which address equity and participation in data collection by Indigenous Peoples and local communities (Carroll et al., 2020; Carroll et al., 2021; GIDA, 2025). Integrating these various requirements for designing secure, auditable, verifiable data pipelines that allow for value creation and participation of multiple stakeholders demands technologies that can integrate often conflicting needs and leverage multi-stakeholder participation for creating inclusion and opportunities.
1.2 Decentralizing IoT networks to address challenges in design and governance of environmental data pipelines
Decentralized IoT-networks are part of an emerging field seeking to address the aforementioned design and governance challenges in data pipelines that occur related to centralization - the centralization of control, operation, governance, or benefits and the related security, transparency and reliability concerns. Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePIN) introduce a new approach to constructing and managing distributed physical infrastructure on blockchain (Law, 2023). As decentralized physical infrastructure, IoT-networks are hosted on blockchain to further enhance the security, governance, reliability, transparency and traceability of network transactions. Deploying IoT-networks on a public blockchain can furthermore incentivize network adoption and maintenance by leveraging rewards in cryptocurrency for network hosting and operation (Gala and Kassab, 2024).
1.2.1 Blockchain architecture and environmental monitoring
Blockchain is a decentralized ledger technology that allows data or transactions to be securely recorded and verified across a distributed network. Each transaction is grouped into a “block” and added to a chain of blocks using cryptographic validation via consensus protocols (Swan, 2015; Pilkington, 2016). In some blockchain architectures, smart contracts enable automation of execution of protocols without a central authority (Szabo, 1997). Not all blockchain-based infrastructures support smart contracts. In some systems blockchain functionality primarily serves identity, incentives, and auditability, while data handling remains off-chain. The IoT network on Helium is such a case (Helium, 2025b).
Blockchains can be public or private. Public blockchains (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) are open to all participants and often integrate cryptocurrency-based incentives to reward decentralized governance, operation, development and maintenance by builders and users. Private blockchains, more common in proprietary environments, restrict access to a specified user base and typically avoid using crypto assets.
The combination of transparency, immutability, and distributed control of blockchain as a digital infrastructure enables different models of traceability, decentralized governance and accountability. Such decentralized digital infrastructures have been applied across sectors, including health, automotive, and smart grids (Dorri et al., 2017; Yuan et al., 2023), and are increasingly explored in environmental contexts. These sectors all operate within complex, multi-stakeholder environments that require data to be secure, transparent, traceable, decentralized, and automatable, where blockchain-based data architectures can help meet these requirements. In addition, blockchains function as a base layer for data economies, data marketplaces and exchanges and help unlock value potential of decision-relevant information. Use cases of hosting and sharing environmental data on blockchain include:
• Supply chain traceability (e.g., Munir et al., 2022).
• Payments for ecosystem services using smart contracts to automate and verify transactions (e.g., Oberhauser, 2019; Granados and Schlüter, 2023).
• Data marketplaces for ecological data and biodiversity tokens (see Wunder et al., 2025; Lewis et al., 2023).
• Decentralized data sharing platforms for ecological data in research environments (Marstein et al., 2024).
1.2.2 DePIN for environmental monitoring
The integration of IoT networks with blockchain is an additional promising approach to address social, technical, governance and economic challenges in environmental monitoring. Drawing on literature providing overview of the digital infrastructure of integrating IoT and blockchain across various application contexts and use cases (Kotel et al., 2023; Reyna et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2020), the following essential features of blockchain-based IoT solutions can be identified. While these features are not exclusive to environmental monitoring, they are indicative of the combination of these digital layers.
• Transparency and verifiability: Blockchain can create an immutable, verifiable audit trail of IoT generated data exchanges, increasing traceability of data origin and data trails among stakeholders and enabling third-party verification.
• Device identity and authentication: Blockchain supports secure, decentralized authentication of devices (for instance of IoT sensors and IoT hotspots) which reduces dependency on centralized registries.
• Security: Transactions between IoT devices can be encrypted and undergo decentralized verification processes, using protocols such as zero-knowledge proofs or homomorphic encryption (Gugueoth et al., 2023; Shammar et al., 2021).
• Automation via smart contracts: In some blockchain systems, smart contracts enable automated processes - such as triggering PES payments upon threshold detection from IoT devices - minimizing human error and reducing transaction costs. Note that not all blockchain infrastructure deploys smart contracts.
• Fault tolerance and data redundancy: Decentralized storage and validation reduce single points of failure, increasing system robustness and making the IoT network resistant to attacks or data loss (Kotel et al., 2023).
• Scalability: Distributed IoT architectures support expansion without centralized bottlenecks. Participants can join as users, infrastructure developers and operators (Haque et al., 2024).
• Decentralized governance: Blockchain enables participatory governance through community voting on community proposals, offering a contrast to centralized platform control (Werner and Zarnekow, 2020). While governance mechanisms require careful design to ensure fairness of participation and equity (Tan et al., 2022; Werbach et al., 2024), the active design, development and expansion of IoT networks on blockchain through their community of users, developers and operators offers active community participation in shaping governance processes and in developing their digital architecture and implementation.
• Cost efficiency: By eliminating intermediaries and reducing infrastructure overhead, blockchain-based IoT networks can offer lower operational costs which is especially relevant in low-resource settings (Khattak et al., 2020).
• Monetization and incentives: In public blockchain infrastructures, participants earn rewards for operating IoT network infrastructure, contributing data, or verifying transactions. This creates new models for community participation, fractional income or additional revenue streams and sustainability of monitoring systems (Davidson et al., 2016; Davidson et al., 2018; Reyna et al., 2018).
• Regulatory integration: To reach full potential, blockchain systems must be embedded in broader institutional and legal frameworks that ensure compliance, data protection, and equitable access (Hart et al., 2024; Werbach et al., 2024).
While blockchain-IoT integration is being widely used in industry environments and smart cities, environmental monitoring applications only recently receives increasing attention (Musaddiq et al., 2022). In the following section, a pilot use case of IoT operation on the blockchain-based Helium Network is presented and evaluated according to the core features as outlined above from the specific perspective of environmental monitoring in a community-based restoration project. IoT-sensors were installed in the context of a community-based urban green space restoration project in Nairobi, Kenya, to test the monitoring of environmental variables, such as air quality, microclimate, soil and hydrological conditions, with a perspective to eventually assess and compare variation and distribution of urban regulating ecosystem services before and after restoration activities. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to date to examine the deployment of decentralized blockchain-based IoT infrastructure for environmental monitoring within a community-based restoration project in Kenya.
2 Decentralized blockchain-based IoT in a community-based urban green space restoration project in Kamukunji Park in Nairobi, Kenya (2023)
Environmental monitoring activities using IoT sensors on the Helium Network were conducted from 24 August to 4 December 2023 as part of a community-based urban green space restoration initiative in and around Kamukunji Park in Nairobi, Kenya. Kamukunji Park is a public urban green space located next to the Nairobi River and a busy market area. Once degraded and used as an informal dumping ground, the park has undergone gradual restoration through community-led efforts and today features recreational facilities, urban farming plots, and tree planting initiatives aimed at improving environmental quality, enhancing biodiversity, and providing a multi-use space for local residents (Figure 1). The park is owned by the city of Nairobi but has been maintained by the Kamukunji Environmental Conservation Champions (KECC), a volunteer coalition of neighborhood groups dedicated to urban environmental stewardship, both before and during the project period. KECC has led restoration and maintenance activities including tree planting, urban farming, waste management in the park and along the Nairobi River, and the installation of recreational infrastructure such as a children’s playground. KECC is part of the Public Space Network (Public Space Network, 2025), an umbrella organization supporting community-based urban greening across Nairobi. Kamukunji Park is primarily used by local residents for recreation, social activities, and small-scale agriculture. Despite progressive restoration, inadequate waste management from the adjacent market continues to pollute the river and riverbed, a challenge actively addressed by the community initiative (Figure 2). KECC operates largely on a volunteer basis and has had limited or intermittent funding, and no dedicated municipal or internal budget was available for environmental monitoring. The pilot deployment of the IoT-based monitoring infrastructure and related activities was therefore financed through an external Filecoin Green grant, which also supported the environmental monitoring component of the community project. A blockchain-based IoT solution, which reduces monitoring costs through participation in decentralized infrastructure, was therefore a strong fit under these constraints. By distributing not only the costs but also the benefits of data collection and data exchange, peer-to-peer monitoring networks can significantly enable environmental monitoring in low-resource contexts and support broader network adoption.
Figure 1. Layout of Kamukunji Park, Nairobi, Kenya. Image adapted from Akshay Aditya.
Figure 2. Contrasting views of the Nairobi River in Kamukunji Park: The left image shows a relatively restored area with minimal visible pollution, while the right image highlights severe plastic and solid waste accumulation along the riverbanks. The photos document the local environmental conditions prior to or during restoration efforts. Pictures taken by Daniel Shirima and Elzaphan Murage.
3 Monitoring purpose and network characteristics
3.1 Environmental monitoring in the project context
In the context of these community-based restoration activities, ten IoT sensors were installed in and around Kamukunji Park, Nairobi, Kenya, on the decentralized Helium IoT Network to test and enable monitoring of environmental variables and their spatial and temporal distribution (Figure 3). The monitoring aimed to support restoration planning, track progress, and contribute to citizen science, with data benefiting not only local urban green space stewards but also researchers, environmental authorities, and educational initiatives. The monitoring setup included a range of IoT sensors measuring variables relevant for inferring regulating urban ecosystem services from observational data. Particulate matter sensors captured PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 (µg/m3) as indicators of air quality and potential human health impacts. A weather station recorded temperature (°C), relative humidity (%RH), atmospheric pressure (Pa), rainfall (mm/h), light intensity (Lux), UV index (0–12), wind direction (degrees), and wind speed (m/s), characterizing local microclimatic conditions and pollutant dispersion. Leaf moisture sensors measured surface wetness (0–1) and temperature (°C), while river level sensors recorded vertical distance to the water surface (mm). Soil sensors captured temperature (°C), volumetric water content (%VWC), and electrical conductivity (dS/m), providing insights into soil moisture dynamics and salinity or nutrient levels. Together, these indicators enabled integrated monitoring of air pollution, microclimate, hydrological conditions, and soil health in the urban green space (Table 1). Sensor data were complemented by remote sensing and field observations to contextualize environmental and climatic conditions.
Figure 3. Dragino LDDS75, a LoRaWAN distance detection sensor in Kamukunji park, Nairobi, Kenya.
Table 1. Measured units by sensor.
IoT sensors were procured through a partnership with KECC, which was responsible for hosting and maintenance, in collaboration with the IoT initiative BLCK IoT (Nairobi, Kenya/Berlin, Germany). During the pilot phase, sensors transmitted data every 4 hours. Decoded data were forwarded to the online platform Datacake for dashboard visualization and basic analytics. Neither raw data nor analytics were stored or executed on-chain. Helium’s blockchain component relates to network coordination, device and Hotspot identity, and verifiable transmission events rather than data processing.
Traceable data streams were considered important for ensuring data integrity across stakeholders. Participation in a decentralized IoT network further reduced network provision costs and enabled participants to act as network operators and contributors to network governance. Given resource constraints and the need for a secure, robust, long-range solution suitable for dense urban environments, IoT sensors and Hotspots were deployed on the Helium Network (Haleem et al., 2024), one of the largest blockchain-based IoT networks offering LoRaWAN connectivity in 195 countries. Approximately 100 Helium gateways were deployed across residential and commercial buildings in Nairobi to ensure area-wide coverage and high redundancy of packet delivery. In the following, a ‘packet’ refers to a LoRaWAN message transmitted over the network, consisting of routing metadata and an encrypted sensor payload, where the payload contains the environmental measurement data.
3.2 Network characteristics: LoRaWAN on Helium Network
The Helium Network (Haleem et al., 2024) is a decentralized blockchain-based system that provides global LoRaWAN coverage and, more recently, 5G connectivity in selected regions, including the United States and Mexico. Its IoT subnetwork integrates a Proof of Coverage mechanism to independently verify the geographic location and network activity of IoT-Hotspots and to track data transmission (see, e.g., Rad et al., 2025).
Participants who host IoT-Hotspots, which function as LoRaWAN gateways, are incentivized with IOT tokens for their contribution to network maintenance and coverage. This makes network participants not only users but also operators of the network and rewards their efforts to network contribution. The allocation and distribution of costs and benefits among participants is based on peer-to-peer network operation and enables access to IoT-infrastructure in areas with limited infrastructure and resources which may otherwise not be available.
In 2025, the Helium IoT network comprised around 235,146 active IoT Hotspots globally (Helium, 2025b). Following community approval on the Helium Improvement Proposal HIP70, the network migrated in 2023 from its proprietary blockchain to Solana, where Hotspots are now represented as compressed non-fungible tokens, each uniquely identified by ECC Compact Public Keys. The network’s IoT functionality is based on LoRaWAN (Long Range Wide Area Network), a low-power wide area network protocol designed for long-range, low-bandwidth wireless communication with minimal energy requirements (Anastasiou et al., 2023; Raza et al., 2017). It operates in unlicensed ISM frequency bands (e.g., 868 MHz in Europe and 915 MHz in North America), enabling flexible deployment and reducing network operation costs. Legal operation requires compliance with region-specific regulations, including duty-cycle limits, transmission power constraints, and channel plans defined for each frequency band (Addabbo et al., 2019; Reyneke et al., 2023). The LoRaWAN protocol is developed and maintained by the LoRa Alliance (LoRa Alliance, 2025), is publicly available, and designed to ensure interoperability across devices, networks, and platforms. LoRaWAN is widely applied in sectors such as environmental monitoring, agriculture, smart cities, urban sensing, and industrial IoT. Its technical characteristics, including long transmission range, low data rates, and extended battery life, support deployment in settings with limited infrastructure such as rural areas or environments with constrained maintenance capacity.
4 Discussion: opportunities and challenges
The use of LoRaWAN on Helium Network in Kamukunji Park enabled a real-world test of decentralized IoT monitoring under conditions of limited infrastructure and resources. Building on the technical and governance dimensions outlined in Section 1.2.2, the following sections assess the extent to which the Helium Network’s LoRaWAN infrastructure fulfilled requirements for secure, transparent, and cost-efficient environmental data transmission and accessibility of IoT-infrastructure at the time of project implementation. The evaluation draws on empirical observations from the project to identify both enabling conditions and constraints in deploying blockchain-based IoT for community-led environmental monitoring.
4.1 Enhancing security, integrity, and adoption through blockchain
LoRaWAN (see Table 2 for comparison across networks) ensures the security of its messages between end devices and the network server through origin authentication, integrity, and replay protection. It uses the encryption standard AES-128 for end-to-end encryption and adds a frame counter to packets for verification (Blenn and Kuipers, 2017). For a device to join the LoRaWAN network, it must undergo a secure join procedure involving authentication between the end device and the network server to establish session keys. While LoRaWAN leverages its own security features (Coman et al., 2019), the use of blockchain by the Helium Network adds an additional security layer by enabling and recording device and Hotspot identities and by recording data transmission events as on-chain transactions, without storing payload data on-chain. LoRaWAN’s core features, such as long-range coverage, low cost, security features including AES encryption, an open protocol, scalability, and low power usage, align with the Helium Network’s mission to provide widespread, low-cost, efficient, and self-maintaining IoT connectivity. The Helium Network establishes a system for bi-directional data transfer between wireless devices and the internet without the need for a single centralized network operator and seeks to further enhance network security and reliability. The network grows through a decentralized model in which anyone can participate by setting up a Helium Hotspot. Hotspots are combination devices: they act as wireless gateways providing LoRaWAN network coverage for IoT devices, allowing long-range data transmission, and as nodes of the Helium Network (Figure 4). In return for providing network coverage and witnessing other Hotspots’ location and activity, Hotspot owners earn rewards in the IOT token. Data transmission from IoT devices into the network is paid for using Data Credits (DC), which can be derived from HNT tokens. It is important to differentiate between access conditions to the Helium Hotspot infrastructure and access conditions at the IoT application layer. While the Helium Network is permissionless at the infrastructure level, meaning that anyone may operate Hotspots, this does not imply access to sensor data. LoRaWAN payloads are end-to-end encrypted and data access is governed off-chain by the application layer (see Figure 4). In the context of the project, decoded data streams and dashboards were managed by the project partners, while participation in the network alone did not grant access to sensor data.
Table 2. Comparison of wireless communication protocols for IoT applications.
Figure 4. End-to-end architecture of a decentralized environmental IoT network. Low-power wide-area network (LPWAN) sensors collect environmental data (e.g., air, soil, wind, water, vegetation) and transmit it via LoRaWAN operated on blockchain-connected hotspots. These hotspots relay the data to application servers and cloud IoT platforms for real-time monitoring and visualization through dashboards. In the project, Datacake was used for basic analytics and visualization.
From a cybersecurity perspective, the main risks to the Helium-based IoT network are (i) physical tampering with end devices, (ii) key compromise at provisioning and (iii) exposure of metadata such as transmission timing. A malicious Hotspot can forward packets but cannot decrypt payloads without the session keys. In the project context, mitigation relied on LoRaWAN end-to-end encryption with secure key provisioning, access control on the application layer (Datacake) and operational monitoring of device activity via Helium Console logs. As an alternative model, a permissioned consortium Blockchain model could reduce openness at the infrastructure layer - since it restricts access - but would introduce governance and operation overhead and central points of control. In line with the project’s resource constraints, the LoRaWAN security model combined with off-chain access control constituted a suitable and practical security configuration for the project context.
4.2 Accessibility, transparency and integrity of network participation - verification of node location and proof-of-coverage
The process for onboarding a new Hotspot into the network involves a Hotspot operator purchasing hardware from an authorized Maker and completing a self-onboarding procedure to connect to the network. After receiving the device, Hotspot operators physically install it at their chosen location. The primary tools for setup and management are the Helium Wallet app and, depending on the manufacturer, additional Hotspot-specific applications. These guide users through initializing the Hotspot, connecting it to the network and registering it on the Helium blockchain to establish its presence. The Wallet app also allows operators to manage settings and view performance metrics, which are only accessible to the Hotspot owner. At onboarding, Hotspots sign an onboarding transaction to prove ownership of the device. A Hotspot can be designated as an IoT Hotspot, a Mobile Hotspot, or be on-boarded into both subnets. To qualify for rewards in both the Mobile and IoT networks, a Hotspot must be onboarded to each subnet separately, including confirming its geographic location for each.
When setting up a Helium Hotspot, the operator asserts the device’s geographic location. This is part of the Proof-of-Coverage (PoC) mechanism through which the network verifies that Hotspots are operating where they claim to be and are providing wireless coverage. Location assertions and participation in PoC require a fee paid in Data Credits, which discourages unnecessary updates. Hotspots earn IOT tokens by participating in PoC activities, including beaconing and witnessing other Hotspots. While PoC processes were originally conducted fully on-chain, verification and reward calculation are now handled by off-chain oracles, with some actions such as location assertions remaining traceable on-chain and publicly verifiable through tools such as Helium Explorer, Hotspotty, and Moken. Helium’s oracle-based reward accounting and Proof-of-Coverage mechanisms continue to evolve over time, with protocol updates progressively shifting verification, anti-gaming logic, and reward calculation off-chain to improve scalability, cost efficiency, and robustness as the network grows (Solana Foundation, 2025).
While the Wallet app provides Hotspot activity insights for operators, Helium Explorer serves as a public interface for monitoring Hotspot deployment and activity across the network.
In the context of the restoration project, 100 Helium Network gateways were installed across residential and commercial buildings in Nairobi, providing area-wide coverage and high redundancy of packet delivery. Ten IoT sensor devices were installed at Kamukunji Park and transmitted data into the network. Project partners endorsed the use of Helium and LoRaWAN for similar applications, citing transmission range, low power requirements and cost efficiency as valuable features. Sensor setup was described as simple, comparatively inexpensive, and secure relative to more centralized alternatives. Participants also reported that onboarding Hotspots and registering IoT devices required minimal technical expertise, and that integrating sensor data with Datacake, a low-code IoT visualization and analytics platform, was seamless.
4.3 Transparency and rewards for data transmission–setting up IoT devices and auditable data trails
The Helium Console is a tool used to set up and monitor IoT devices such as sensors and to track their activity on the Helium Network. IoT devices are registered through the Helium Console using device identifiers (e.g., DevEUI, AppEUI/JoinEUI, AppKey). The Console is also used to monitor device activity and data usage via network logs. When an IoT device such as a sensor transmits data via a Hotspot, data transfer is paid for in Data Credits. Data Credits can be allocated to devices to enable data transmission into the network. Hotspots then forward these packets into the network.
A Hotspot’s packet forwarding is verified by an oracle, which triggers protocol-level reward accounting in IOT tokens. No application-level smart contracts are used for sensor payload upload, routing, or transmission. Packet routing follows standard LoRaWAN and Helium procedures, while payload decoding, storage, and analytics are handled off-chain.
In the project setting, Helium Network tools and features were used to establish transparency of data streams and data transmission for multiple stakeholders. A transparent data trail was established by combining several Helium Network tools: the Helium Console for monitoring IoT device activity was used alongside the Wallet app, Helium Explorer, and tools such as Helium Mapper, Hotspotty, and Moken, which enable monitoring and inspection of individual Hotspots, including location, status (online/offline), recent activity, and earned rewards. Transmission events and related network transactions are recorded on-chain (without storing payload data), enabling publicly verifiable activity trails.
Hotspot activity records include beacon transmissions, witnessing of other Hotspots, reward allocations and data packet transfer events. These records were publicly accessible via Helium Explorer and support monitoring of Hotspot performance at the network level. Helium Explorer provided a public blockchain-level view of Hotspot event history, transaction records (including data transfer and proof-of-coverage events), reward allocations, and wallet balances. Hotspotty complemented this by offering more detailed diagnostics for Hotspot operators, including uptime, relay status, earnings, firmware updates, geolocation tools for coverage mapping and frequency plan checks as well as notification and alert functions.
The project established a routine of combining private and public tools to ensure transparency of IoT device activity and Hotspot performance, enabling cross-checking and verification of sensor activity and data transmission across multiple data sources.
4.4 Network coverage, reliability and autonomous operation
The project reported reliable network coverage, attributing this success to proper sensor installation. Once sensors were installed, no further human presence or adjustment was required. No significant packet loss was noted and packets from different sensors were transmitted successfully during testing. However, another study using the Helium Network in a remote area in Sweden for environmental monitoring in wetlands by Musaddiq et al. (2022) reported packets that would not reach the cloud with a packet drop of 0.1%–2%.
The project also acknowledged challenges with regard to establishing network coverage in Kenya. Due to the slow adoption rate of Helium IoT Network in Kenya, in contrast to rapid adoption seen in regions like Europe and the USA, multiple gateways (n = 100) had to be deployed to provide network coverage. This also presented an opportunity for piloting innovative work in leveraging these technologies for environmental measurements in this context for the first time.
4.5 Operational costs and pay-to-communicate
Network transactions on Helium Network are paid for in Data Credits (DC) depending on the network use according to a pay-to-communicate model. The number of Data Credits that a single sensor consumes per day depends on several factors. Besides the data packet size, which is the amount of data a sensor transmits in a single message, another factor is the frequency of transmission. More frequent transmissions as well as larger packet size lead to higher consumption of Data Credits.
While the cost to send data on the Helium Network is standardized (1 DC = $0.00001 USD), the actual number of Data Credits consumed per message depends on payload size and transmission frequency. During the pilot phase, one sensor transmitted a data packet costing approximately 5 DC every 4 hours, resulting in 25–30 DC per sensor per day. This corresponds to approximately 900 DC per sensor per month, or 9000 DC ($0.09 USD) per month for all ten sensors combined. By comparison, using a conventional IoT setup based on a local 4G provider for distributed outdoor environmental monitoring would have incurred connectivity costs of approximately $2.32 USD per sensor per month, amounting to $23.20 USD per month for ten sensors (see Table 3 for comparison). This implies avoided recurring IoT connectivity costs of approximately $23.11 USD per month (around 99.6%).
Table 3. Comparison of costs of using LoRaWan on Helium Network against a locally available 4G network provider in Nairobi, Kenya, in 2023.
Beyond direct transmission costs, the Helium-based IoT setup avoided per-device cellular subscriptions and tariff management typical of 4G-based IoT deployments such as SIM card management, contractual commitments and provider-specific scaling constraints.
Operational costs also arise after transmission, including data decoding, storage, analysis and visualization. In the project, these functions were provided off-chain through Datacake, a subscription-based data platform whose pricing depends on the number of connected devices and enabled features. During the pilot phase, Datacake incurred operational costs of approximately USD $20 per month.
The main operational cost advantage of using Helium-based IoT therefore stems from low marginal transmission costs and from the modularity of the system’s infrastructure, such as of the data analytics layer which can be scaled, replaced, self-hosted or potentially connected to other on-chain data infrastructure such as data exchanges.
4.6 Benefits and rewards
A Hotspot’s asserted location affects the distribution of rewards in IOT tokens that Hotspots can earn from data transmission and from participating in the Proof-of-Coverage process. Rewards from Hotspot operations depend on the number and density of IoT devices in the area and on network coverage. Having a high density of Hotspots in high-traffic areas can benefit PoC rewards. A well-situated Hotspot in an area with a high Hotspot density can better participate in PoC challenges if it is within range of other active Hotspots. Adoption of use of Helium Network in Nairobi, Kenya, is however rather low, such that there are not many network interactions. Benefits of operating decentralized network gateways and IoT sensors on Helium Network in these scenarios can still be assessed counterfactually against a baseline of network operations contracting a traditional centralized network provider, where no rewards are earned at all. In the context of the restoration project, economic incentives to use Helium Network over other network providers mostly existed in substantially reducing monitoring costs (by approximately 99.6%) than in earning rewards.
4.7 Regulation
Since Helium Network employs cryptocurrency to reward network operators but also requires users to pay for using its network services via a digital currency, compliance with the respective local regulations is a core concern in all cases of Helium Network deployment, operation and use. Kenyans are legally allowed to buy and sell cryptocurrencies (Chainanalysis, 2023). In Kenya, cryptocurrency was at the point of project implementation and piloting of the Helium IoT network regulated by the following acts: (1) The National Payments Systems Act (NPSA); (2) the Capital Markets Act (CMA); and (3) the Kenya Information and Communication Act (KICA). The Central Bank of Kenya is responsible for overseeing payment service providers to ensure that platforms are safe for investors.
4.8 Data privacy and possibilities of integration
The Helium Network records data transmissions on the blockchain without recording the data itself, in compliance with data privacy regulations. Data packets are transmitted in AES-encrypted format. Within the Helium Network, monetization is restricted to network operations such as providing network coverage for data transmission and maintenance of the network and does not relate to the content of the data itself. However, IoT device operations can be further connected and integrated with data marketplaces where an IoT operator can further trade their data, thereby generating possibly further revenue. During the pilot project, none of these options were pursued.
4.9 Participation in network development and governance
Helium Network receives Helium Improvement Proposals (HIPs) which are a mechanism for proposing changes or improvements to the Helium network. HIPs allow community members, developers, and shareholders to formally suggest enhancements, developing features, or policy changes to the existing ecosystem. HIPs are developed and discussed and voted upon by its community to develop the network further. All Helium Improvement Proposals can be found on the platform GitHub (Helium, 2025a). In the context of the restoration project, project partners participated in governance of Helium Network through voting on proposals and thereby contributed to further development and governance of the network.
4.10 Local community participation
The project partners did not only participate digitally in community network development of the Helium Network globally, but also collaborated with other local members of the Helium network community in Nairobi and citizen science platforms such as Sensors Africa (Sensors Africa, 2025) to fill environmental data gaps and create a more robust citizen science engagement network for distributed and decentralized environmental monitoring efforts through coordinating deployments of Hotspots in underserved areas.
5 Conclusion and outlook
Deploying blockchain-based IoT networks for environmental monitoring can help address design and governance challenges in environmental data streams by enhancing the integrity and transparency of data transmission, while also reducing the cost of network operation. Recording IoT data transmissions on a blockchain establishes a traceable history of transactions, enabling transparency across multi-actor data pipelines and providing tamper-proof records.
In the context of the community-based restoration project of an urban green space in Nairobi, Kenya, operating the IoT network LoRaWAN on the blockchain-based Helium Network enabled traceability and transparency of data transmission and monitoring of IoT devices, Hotspots, and their activity for multiple stakeholders using tools available through the Helium Network and related platforms. The restoration initiative derived economic benefits from participating in environmental monitoring over the Helium Network through reducing monitoring costs compared to contracting a centralized local network provider by around 99.6%. The economic benefits resulted from cost reductions rather than from rewards through Proof-of-Coverage mechanisms or participation in location assertion, due to low network adoption in Kenya.
Decentralized IoT networks where participants become not only users but stake- and shareholders, developers, participants, voters and operators of network services offer a new way of distributing costs and benefits across participants. This leverages significant economic and governance advantages especially in low-resource contexts.
Participating in a decentralized physical infrastructure network further added social benefits through community participation and governance in IoT and environmental monitoring communities both globally and locally. Project participants took part in digital voting processes for further technical and governance development of the Helium Network globally and equally connected with other local citizen science initiatives to expand, enhance, and better coordinate environmental monitoring efforts locally. Integrating the Helium Network into environmental monitoring thus added an additional social and community dimension to the restoration project. Participation established and strengthened local connections through shared efforts with Nairobi’s broader citizen science and IoT community, contributing to collective data aggregation regarding environmental public goods.
As a general-purpose blockchain-based IoT infrastructure, the Helium Network enables the deployment of monitoring solutions across a wide range of applications and use cases. In parallel, purpose-built blockchain and digital infrastructures developed specifically for conservation and restoration contexts allow incentive structures and governance mechanisms to be aligned with the economic, social, and institutional conditions of environmental monitoring for conservation-related decision-making. Initiatives such as SimplexDNA (SimplexDNA, 2025, supporting local eDNA sampling), GainForest (GainForest, 2025, embedding data collection within community-led environmental projects), and Regen Network (Regen Network, 2025, linking ecological project development with blockchain-based marketplaces) illustrate approaches that integrate technical infrastructure with environmental monitoring and restoration objectives. Analogous to established off-chain citizen science platforms such as iNaturalist (iNaturalist, 2025) and eBird (eBird, 2025), these blockchain-based networks create opportunities to align technical features, such as traceability, reduced transaction costs, and unique data identification with participation in environmental project development.
At the same time, globally distributed decentralized IoT networks such as the Helium Network, which build on widely deployed technical infrastructure, enable rapid scaling, broad accessibility, and deployment in underserved or rural areas, while benefiting from economies of scale that can significantly reduce operating costs and therefore enable low-cost access to digital infrastructure that may otherwise not be accessible.
In this way, large-scale decentralized IoT networks and more context-specific, mission-driven initiatives may offer complementary strengths in terms of scalability, accessibility, governance, and contextual fit. Further research and development can explore how blockchain-based IoT solutions may be integrated with existing environmental monitoring systems and regulatory landscapes, and how different technical infrastructures can be combined, extended, or interoperated to better support environmental monitoring, community engagement, participation and equity and data exchange across platforms and networks.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
HF: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization. BA: Conceptualization, Investigation, Resources, Writing – review and editing. SS: Resources, Validation, Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. The author(s) declared that the community project was funded through this Filecoin Green Grant (https://github.com/filecoin-project/devgrants/blob/master/Archive/rfps/green-grants.md).
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Adrian Clint, Aarti Utwani, Ronald Steyer, and others for providing useful comments on previous versions of this paper. We would like to thank Akshay Aditya, Elzaphan Murage, Daniel Shirima, Nicholas Wahuho and Josephat Karomi (KECC) and all other community members and project participants for collaboration on the urban green space project.
Conflict of interest
Authors BA and SS were employed by BLCK IOT.
The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Abd-Elrady, E., Abuelkheir, O., and Al-Amer, K. (2022). “IoT technology for wildlife conservation based on energy harvesting,” in Proceedings of the international conference on industrial engineering and operations management (Rome, Europe: IEOM Society International), 1704–1711. doi:10.46254/EU05.20220332
Addabbo, T., Fort, M., Parri, V., Parri, L., Pozzebon, A., and Vignoli, V. (2019). “Smart sensing in mobility: a LoRaWAN architecture for pervasive environmental monitoring,”. Florence, Italy, 421–426. doi:10.1109/RTSI.2019.889556
Ahmed, M. A., Gallardo, J. L., Zuniga, M. D., Pedraza, M. A., Carvajal, G., Jara, N., et al. (2022). LoRa based IoT platform for remote monitoring of large-scale agriculture farms in Chile. Sensors 22, 2824. doi:10.3390/s22082824
Anastasiou, A., Zinonos, Z., and Georgiades, M. (2023). “LoRa-Based environmental monitoring system for commercial farming,” in 2023 19th international conference on distributed computing in smart systems and the internet of things (DCOSS-IoT) (Pafos, Cyprus: IEEE), 734–739. doi:10.1109/DCOSS-IoT58021.2023.00115
Beery, S., Morris, D., Yang, S., Simon, M., Norouzzadeh, A., and Joshi, N. (2019). Efficient pipeline for automating species ID in new camera trap projects. BISS 3, e37222. doi:10.3897/biss.3.37222
Blenn, N., and Kuipers, F. (2017). LoRaWAN in the wild: measurements from the things network. Available online at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03086 (Accessed December 8, 2023).
Bublitz, M., Oetomo, A., Sahu, S., Kuang, A., Fadrique, X., Velmovitsky, L. E., et al. (2019). Disruptive technologies for environment and health research: an overview of artificial intelligence, blockchain, and internet of things. IJERPH 16, 3847. doi:10.3390/ijerph16203847
Carroll, S. R., Garba, I., Figueroa-Rodríguez, O. L., Holbrook, J., Lovett, R., Materechera, S., et al. (2020). The CARE principles for Indigenous data governance. Data Sci. J. 19, 43. doi:10.5334/dsj-2020-043
Carroll, S. R., Herczog, E., Hudson, M., Russell, K., and Stall, S. (2021). Operationalizing the CARE and FAIR principles for Indigenous data futures. Sci. Data 8, 108. doi:10.1038/s41597-021-00892-0
Chainanalysis (2023). Cryptocurrency penetrates key markets in Sub-Saharan Africa as an inflation mitigation and trading vehicle. Available online at: https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/africa-cryptocurrency-adoption/ (Accessed December 25, 2025).
Codeluppi, G., Cilfone, A., Davoli, L., and Ferrari, G. (2020). LoRaFarM: a LoRaWAN-Based smart farming modular IoT architecture. Sensors 20, 2028. doi:10.3390/s20072028
Coman, F. L., Malarski, K. M., Petersen, M. N., and Ruepp, S. (2019). “Security issues in internet of things: vulnerability analysis of LoRaWAN, sigfox and NB-IoT,” in 2019 global IoT summit (GIoTS) (Aarhus, Denmark: IEEE), 1–6. doi:10.1109/GIOTS.2019.8766430
Davidson, S., De Filippi, P., and Potts, J. (2016). Economics of blockchain. SSRN J. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2744751
Davidson, S., De Filippi, P., and Potts, J. (2018). Blockchains and the economic institutions of capitalism. J. Institutional Econ. 14, 639–658. doi:10.1017/S1744137417000200
Devaraj Sheshu, E., Manjunath, N., Karthik, S., and Akash, U. (2018). “Implementation of flood warning system using IoT,” in 2018 second international conference on green computing and internet of things (ICGCIoT) (Bangalore, India: IEEE).
Dhanaraju, M., Chenniappan, P., Ramalingam, K., Pazhanivelan, S., and Kaliaperumal, R. (2022). Smart farming: internet of things (IoT)-Based sustainable agriculture. Agriculture 12, 1745. doi:10.3390/agriculture12101745
Dorri, A., Steger, M., Kanhere, S. S., and Jurdak, R. (2017). BlockChain: a distributed solution to automotive security and privacy. IEEE Commun. Mag. 55, 119–125. doi:10.1109/MCOM.2017.1700879
Dramé-Maigné, S., Laurent, M., Castillo, L., and Ganem, H. (2022). Centralized, distributed, and everything in between: reviewing access control solutions for the IoT. ACM Comput. Surv. 54, 1–34. doi:10.1145/3465170
eBird (2025). eBird. Available online at: https://ebird.org/home (Accessed December 25, 2025).
GainForest (2025). GainForest. Available online at: https://gainforest.earth/ (Accessed December 25, 2025).
Gala and Kassab (2024). State of DePIN 2023. Available online at: https://messari.io/report/state-of-depin-2023 (Accessed December 25, 2025).
GIDA (2025). CARE principles for Indigenous data governance. Available online at: https://www.gida-global.org/care (Accessed December 25, 2025).
Granados, J., and Schlüter, A. (2023). Blockchain and payments for environmental services: tools and oppertunities for environmental protection. Bremen. doi:10.21244/zmt.2023.001
Gugueoth, V., Safavat, S., Shetty, S., and Rawat, D. (2023). A review of IoT security and privacy using decentralized blockchain techniques. Comput. Sci. Rev. 50, 100585. doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2023.100585
Haleem, A., Allen, A., Thompson, A., Nijdam, M., and Garg, R. (2024). Helium: a decentralized wireless communication network.
Haque, E. U., Shah, A., Iqbal, J., Ullah, S. S., Alroobaea, R., and Hussain, S. (2024). A scalable blockchain based framework for efficient IoT data management using lightweight consensus. Sci. Rep. 14, 7841. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-58578-7
Hart, S., Lotti, L., and Shorin, T. (2024). Crypto’s three body problem. Available online at: https://otherinter.net/research/three-body-problem/ (Accessed December 25, 2025).
Helium (2025a). Helium improvement proposals. Available online at: https://github.com/helium/HIP (Accessed December 25, 2025).
Helium (2025b). Helium IoT network website viewer. Available online at: https://world.helium.com/en/network/iot (Accessed December 25, 2025).
iNaturalist (2025). iNaturalist. Available online at: https://www.inaturalist.org/ (Accessed December 25, 2025).
Jacobs, N., Edwards, P., Markovic, M., Cottrill, C. D., and Salt, K. (2020). Who trusts in the smart city? Transparency, governance, and the internet of things. Data and Policy 2, e11. doi:10.1017/dap.2020.11
Johnson, T., and Woodward, K. (2025). Enviro-IoT: calibrating low-cost environmental sensors in urban settings. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2502.07596
Johnson, T., Kanjo, E., and Woodward, K. (2023). DigitalExposome: quantifying impact of urban environment on wellbeing using sensor fusion and deep learning. Comput.Urban Sci. 3, 14. doi:10.1007/s43762-023-00088-9
Kadir, E. A., Efendi, A., and Rosa, S. (2018). Application of LoRaWAN sensor and IoT for environmental monitoring in Riau province Indonesia. Proc. EECSI 2018 5. doi:10.11591/eecsi.v5i5.1643
Kays, R., and Wikelski, M. (2023). The internet of animals: what it is, what it could be. Trends Ecol. and Evol. 38, 859–869. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2023.04.007
Khattak, H. A., Tehreem, K., Almogren, A., Ameer, Z., Din, I. U., and Adnan, M. (2020). Dynamic pricing in industrial internet of things: blockchain application for energy management in smart cities. J. Inf. Secur. Appl. 55, 102615. doi:10.1016/j.jisa.2020.102615
Kotel, S., Sbiaa, F., Kamoun, R. M., and Hamel, L. (2023). A Blockchain-based approach for secure IoT. Procedia Comput. Sci. 225, 3876–3886. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2023.10.383
Kučas, A., Balčiauskas, L., and Lavalle, C. (2023). Identification of urban and wildlife terrestrial corridor intersections for planning of wildlife-vehicle collision mitigation measures. Land 12, 758. doi:10.3390/land12040758
Law (2023). Mapping the landscape of decentralized physical infrastructure networks. Available online at: https://iotex.io/blog/depin-landscape-map/ (Accessed December 25, 2025).
Lewis, R. J., Marstein, K.-E., and Grytnes, J.-A. (2023). Incentivising open ecological data using blockchain technology. Sci. Data 10, 591. doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02496-2
LoRa Alliance (2025). LoRa alliance website. Available online at: https://lora-alliance.org/ (Accessed December 25, 2025).
Marstein, K., Grytnes, J., and Lewis, R. J. (2024). ECKOchain: a FAIR blockchain-based database for long-term ecological data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 16, 2041. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.14280
Munir, M. A., Habib, M. S., Hussain, A., Shahbaz, M. A., Qamar, A., Masood, T., et al. (2022). Blockchain adoption for sustainable supply chain management: economic, environmental, and social perspectives. Front. Energy Res. 10, 899632. doi:10.3389/fenrg.2022.899632
Musaddiq, A., Maleki, N., Palma, F., Mozart, D., Olsson, T., Omareen, M., et al. (2022). “Internet of things for wetland conservation using helium network: experience and analysis,” in Proceedings of the 12th international conference on the internet of things (New York, NY: ACM (Association for Computing Machinery)), 143–146. doi:10.1145/3567445.3569167
Nandutu, I., Atemkeng, M., and Okouma, P. (2022). Intelligent systems using sensors And/Or machine learning to mitigate wildlife–vehicle collisions: a review, challenges, and new perspectives. Sensors 22, 2478. doi:10.3390/s22072478
Oberhauser, D. (2019). Blockchain for environmental governance: can smart contracts reinforce payments for ecosystem services in Namibia? Front. Blockchain 2, 21. doi:10.3389/fbloc.2019.00021
Pilkington, M. (2016). “Blockchain technology: principles and applications,” in Research handbook on digital transformations. Editors F. X. Olleros, and M. Zhegu (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing). doi:10.4337/9781784717766.00019
Public Space Network (2025). Public space network homepage. Available online at: https://www.publicspacenetwork.org/ (Accessed December 25, 2025).
Rad, P., Jozani, M., Zanella, G., Safaei Pour, M., and Abhari, K. (2025). Reimagining the sharing economy through blockchain: the case of helium’s decentralized. Wirel. Netw. doi:10.24251/HICSS.2025.674
Raza, U., Kulkarni, P., and Sooriyabandara, M. (2017). Low power wide area networks: an overview. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials 19, 855–873. doi:10.1109/comst.2017.2652320
Regen Network (2025). Regen network. Available online at: https://www.regen.network/ (Accessed December 25, 2025).
Reyna, A., Martín, C., Chen, J., Soler, E., and Díaz, M. (2018). On blockchain and its integration with IoT. Challenges and opportunities. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 88, 173–190. doi:10.1016/j.future.2018.05.046
Reyneke, M., Mullins, B., and Reith, M. (2023). LoRaWAN and the helium blockchain: a study on military IoT deployment. Iccws 18, 327–337. doi:10.34190/iccws.18.1.944
Reynolds, S. A., Beery, S., Burgess, N., Burgman, M., Butchart, S. H. M., Cooke, S. J., et al. (2025). The potential for AI to revolutionize conservation: a horizon scan. Trends Ecol. and Evol. 40, 191–207. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2024.11.013
Sadique, K. M., Rahmani, R., and Johannesson, P. (2018). Towards security on internet of things: applications and challenges in technology. Procedia Comput. Sci. 141, 199–206. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.168
Sensors Africa (2025). Sensors Africa. Available online at: https://sensors.africa/ (Accessed December 25, 2025).
Shammar, E. A., Zahary, A. T., and Al-Shargabi, A. A. (2021). A survey of IoT and blockchain integration: security perspective. IEEE Access 9, 156114–156150. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3129697
Sharma, M., Joshi, S., Kannan, D., Govindan, K., Singh, R., and Purohit, H. C. (2020). Internet of things (IoT) adoption barriers of smart cities’ waste management: an Indian context. J. Clean. Prod. 270, 122047. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122047
Sharma, A., Nayyar, A., Singh, K. J., Kapoor, D. S., Thakur, K., and Mahajan, S. (2023). An IoT-based forest fire detection system: design and testing. Multimed. Tools Appl. 83, 38685–38710. doi:10.1007/s11042-023-17027-9
SimplexDNA (2025). SimplexDNA. Available online at: https://www.simplexdna.com/ (Accessed December 25, 2025).
Solana Foundation (2025). Case study: a technical deep dive on helium. Available online at: https://solana.com/news/case-study-helium-technical-guided (Accessed December 25, 2025).
Swan, M. (2015). Blockchain: blueprint for a new economy. First edition. Beijing Cambridge Farnham Köln Sebastopol Tokyo: O’Reilly.
Taherdoost, H. (2023). Security and internet of things: benefits, challenges, and future perspectives. Electronics 12, 1901. doi:10.3390/electronics12081901
Tan, E., Mahula, S., and Crompvoets, J. (2022). Blockchain governance in the public sector: a conceptual framework for public management. Gov. Inf. Q. 39, 101625. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2021.101625
Thangavel, S., and Shokkalingam, C. S. (2022). The IoT based embedded system for the detection and discrimination of animals to avoid human–wildlife conflict. J. Ambient. Intell. Hum. Comput. 13, 3065–3081. doi:10.1007/s12652-021-03141-9
Tuia, D., Kellenberger, B., Beery, S., Costelloe, B. R., Zuffi, S., Risse, B., et al. (2022). Perspectives in machine learning for wildlife conservation. Nat. Commun. 13, 792. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-27980-y
Wang, Z., Ni, Gu, Ni, Y., Gu, L., and Zhu, H. (2020). Blockchain for the IoT and industrial IoT: a review. Internet Things 10, 100081. doi:10.1016/j.iot.2019.100081
Werbach, K., Filippi, P. D., Tan, J., and Pieters, G. (2024). Blockchain governance in the wild. Cryptoeconomic Syst. doi:10.21428/58320208.ebd76eea
Werner, J., and Zarnekow, R. (2020). “Governance of blockchain-based platforms,” in WI2020 zentrale tracks (Berlin, Germany: GITO Verlag), 128–141. doi:10.30844/wi_2020_b1-werner
White, T. B., Petrovan, S. O., Booth, H., Correa, R. J., Gatt, Y., Martin, P. A., et al. (2022a). Determining the economic costs and benefits of conservation actions: a decision support framework. Conservat Sci. Prac. 4, e12840. doi:10.1111/csp2.12840
White, T. B., Petrovan, S. O., Christie, A. P., Martin, P. A., and Sutherland, W. J. (2022b). What is the price of conservation? A review of the status quo and recommendations for improving cost reporting. BioScience 72, 461–471. doi:10.1093/biosci/biac007
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, Ij. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., et al. (2016). The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18
Wunder, S., Fraccaroli, C., Bull, J. W., Dutta, T., Eyres, A., Evans, M. C., et al. (2025). Biodiversity credits: an overview of the current state, future opportunities, and potential pitfalls. Bus. Strat. Env. 34, 8470–8499. doi:10.1002/bse.70018
Xu, L., Rolf, E., Beery, S., Bennett, J. R., Berger-Wolf, T., Birch, T., et al. (2023). Reflections from the workshop on AI-Assisted decision making for conservation. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2307.08774
Yoeseph, N. M., Purnomo, F. A., and Hartono, R.Nuryani (2022). Lora-based IoT sensor node for real-time flood early warning system. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 986, 012060. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/986/1/012060
Keywords: blockchain governance, community-based restoration, data transparency, decentralized physical infrastructure networks (DePIN), environmental monitoring, Internet-of-Things (IoT), low-cost sensing
Citation: Fiegenbaum H, Azegele B and Seider S (2026) Decentralized internet-of-things networks for environmental data pipelines: opportunities and challenges in a community-based urban green space restoration project in Nairobi, Kenya. Front. Blockchain 8:1626695. doi: 10.3389/fbloc.2025.1626695
Received: 11 May 2025; Accepted: 30 December 2025;
Published: 21 January 2026.
Edited by:
Larry C. Bates, Independent Researcher, Detroit, MI, United StatesReviewed by:
Gábor Mélypataki, University of Miskolc, HungaryLingming Kong, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
Copyright © 2026 Fiegenbaum, Azegele and Seider. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Hanna Fiegenbaum, aGFubmEuZmllZ2VuYmF1bUBnbWFpbC5jb20=