Drivers and intensity of beekeeping adoption: Micro-evidence from Berekum, Ghana
Drivers and intensity of beekeeping adoption: Micro-evidence from Berekum, Ghana
Keywords
Smallholder apiculture
Livelihood diversification
Participation intensity
Agro-ecological challenges
Heckman selection model
Introduction
Diversification into non-farm activities has been recognized as a critical pathway for improving household income and reducing poverty in rural areas. Among these, beekeeping has gained attention as a sustainable and profitable venture [13]. Serving as a vital livelihood diversification strategy for rural communities, beekeeping offers both economic and ecological benefits. Beyond generating income through the sale of honey and wax, its products are utilized in various household and industrial applications, including food processing, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals. This multifunctionality not only enhances household income but also contributes to biodiversity and ecosystem health, making beekeeping an essential component of sustainable rural development [21].
Globally, beekeeping is widely recognized as a viable means of enhancing rural incomes, supporting biodiversity conservation, and improving agricultural productivity through pollination services. The Food and Agriculture Organization [13] has highlighted that approximately 75% of the world’s food crops depend to some extent on pollination, with bees playing a central role. This reveals the dual significance of beekeeping as an income-generating activity and a key contributor to food security and ecosystem stability.
Empirical evidence from sub-Saharan Africa illustrates how beekeeping complements smallholder farming systems and fosters sustainable livelihoods. For example, studies in Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Kenya have documented the role of apiculture in enhancing household incomes and creating employment opportunities, particularly for land-constrained and unemployed youth. In Ethiopia, Tulu et al. [29] described beekeeping as a critical livelihood strategy for households with limited access to arable land. Their findings revealed that apiculture requires minimal land and inputs, making it an inclusive venture for rural communities. Similarly, as documented by the FAO [12], bees provide a range of benefits that extend beyond their well-known role in pollination and honey production. Unfortunately, these additional contributions are often overlooked. Bees play a vital role in improving human and animal health through apitherapy, which utilizes hive products such as honey, propolis, and bee venom for medicinal purposes. They also serve as bioindicators, offering a natural means of monitoring environmental status by reflecting changes in ecosystem health through their behavior and colony dynamics. Furthermore, bees contribute to innovative social and cultural services, enabling community cohesion and supporting cultural practices that enhance social well-being. These multifaceted benefits highlight the invaluable role of bees in promoting ecological, social, and economic sustainability.
In Ethiopia, Shackleton et al. [28] identified beekeeping as an environmentally friendly and economically viable enterprise that complements crop farming. The authors highlighted its role in enhancing crop yields through pollination and providing an alternative income source during off-farming seasons. Furthermore, the study emphasized the relatively low start-up costs of traditional beekeeping, making it accessible to marginalized groups. Other studies, such as those by Eilers et al. [10], point to the role of beekeeping in fostering social cohesion, as community-based apiculture initiatives often encourage collective action and shared resources. These studies collectively show the potential of beekeeping as a pathway for rural development and poverty alleviation. Beyond its economic benefits, apiculture contributes to environmental sustainability by promoting the conservation of natural habitats and pollinators [6]. Beekeeping is also increasingly recognized as a tool for achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs), particularly those related to poverty reduction, food security, gender equality, and environmental sustainability. This global and regional evidence highlights the versatility of beekeeping and its potential to address multidimensional challenges in rural livelihoods [10].
Amulen et al. [3] estimate that beekeeping can significantly reduce poverty levels in rural Uganda, with its economic benefits stemming primarily from honey production, wax sales, and other hive products. Similarly, Affognon et al. [2] demonstrate that the adoption of modern beekeeping practices in Kenya's Mwingi District positively impacts honey production and income. These studies emphasize the importance of equipping farmers with modern hives, training, and access to markets to enhance productivity and profitability. Gratzer et al. [14], in a review of Ethiopian beekeeping, further point the critical role of apiculture in generating income while simultaneously contributing to ecosystem services, particularly pollination. Despite its benefits, barriers such as limited access to equipment, technical expertise, and environmental challenges like deforestation and pests continue to hinder the widespread adoption of beekeeping in sub-Saharan Africa.
In addition to adoption, the intensity of beekeeping practices, defined by the number of colonies managed, has also garnered scholarly attention. Abro et al. [1] highlight that households in northwestern Ethiopia with better training and market access tend to manage a higher number of colonies, reflecting the importance of institutional support. Schouten [26] and Schouten et al. [27] expand on this by examining factors influencing productivity and welfare outcomes in developing countries. They note that scaling up beekeeping requires addressing socio-economic barriers such as credit access, land ownership, and gender norms, which often limit women's participation. Furthermore, Amulen et al. [4] explore how beekeeping alleviates poverty by not only generating income but also enhancing food security through pollination services. However, they also identify constraints like inadequate extension services and low farmer awareness about pollination's ecological importance. These studies collectively point to the dual benefits of beekeeping as an income source and as a critical enabler of agricultural productivity through pollination, making it an attractive livelihood diversification strategy with both economic and ecological significance.
In Ghana, beekeeping, with the potential of generating about 281.10% return on investment, is seen as an alternative livelihood strategy, particularly in rural communities where traditional farming faces growing challenges [24]. Issues such as land fragmentation, declining soil fertility, and the unpredictability of rainfall patterns have necessitated the search for resilient and sustainable livelihood options [6]. Beekeeping presents a viable solution by offering a low-input, high-reward agricultural enterprise that can thrive in diverse ecological settings. It also aligns with Ghana’s development priorities of promoting agricultural diversification and enhancing rural incomes [24]. While its adoption is still in its infancy compared to other agricultural activities, the potential of beekeeping to contribute to food security, biodiversity conservation, and rural development is increasingly being acknowledged.
Existing studies have begun to document the socio-economic benefits of beekeeping in Ghana. For example, Jeil et al. [15] highlighted the role of beekeeping in improving household incomes and reducing dependence on rain-fed crop production, especially in the savanna and forest transition zones. The study also emphasized the contribution of honey and other bee-related products to household nutrition and health. Other researchers, such as Kalanzi et al. [16], noted the complementary role of beekeeping in enhancing crop yields through pollination, thereby boosting food security and agricultural productivity in rural communities.
However, several barriers have impeded the widespread adoption and scaling of beekeeping in Ghana. Economically, high start-up costs, including the price of modern hives and protective gear, remain a significant hurdle for many smallholder farmers. In addition, limited access to technical training and extension services has left many potential adopters without the skills required to effectively manage bee colonies and maximize yields [15]. Inadequate market linkages for honey and other bee products further constrain the profitability of apiculture, discouraging farmers from investing in the practice. Environmental challenges such as deforestation, pesticide use, and climate variability also threaten the sustainability of beekeeping operations in some regions [16]. Culturally, fear of bee stings poses a significant constraint to the adoption and scaling of beekeeping in many communities. This fear, often rooted in limited knowledge about bee behavior and safety practices, discourages potential adopters from considering beekeeping as a livelihood option [20]. Despite these constraints, interest in beekeeping is growing, spurred by the efforts of development organizations, government programs, and private initiatives promoting apiculture as a viable economic activity. However, there remains a gap in understanding the specific socio-economic and environmental factors driving the adoption and intensity of beekeeping in Ghana.
The study seeks to address two key questions: (1) What factors influence the decision of smallholder farmers to adopt beekeeping? and (2) What factors determine the intensity of adoption in terms of the number of colonies managed? This approach provides a good understanding of the drivers, intensity, and barriers influencing beekeeping in the Berekum Municipality. It aims to contribute to policy formulation by identifying actionable strategies to promote beekeeping as a viable livelihood diversification option, addressing financial, technical, and environmental challenges faced by smallholder farmers in agrarian ecosystems.
Methodology
Study Area and Data
The study was conducted in the Berekum municipality in the Bono region (Figure 1). Berekum is a city located in the Bono Region of Ghana, serving as the capital of the Berekum East Municipal District. The municipality lies between latitudes 7°15′ South and 8°00′ North, and longitudes 2°2′ East and 2°50′ West, covering a total land area of approximately 863.3 square kilometers. It is bordered to the north-east by Tain District, to the north-west by Jaman South District, to the south-west by Dormaa East District, and to the south-east by Sunyani West District. The area experiences a tropical savanna climate characterized by distinct wet and dry seasons. The mean annual rainfall ranges from 1,275 to 1,544 millimeters, with the heaviest rainfall occurring between May and June, followed by a second peak between September and October. A four-month dry season spans from December to March, during which the region experiences cooler and drier conditions due to the Harmattan winds [9]. The municipality predominantly features semi-deciduous forest vegetation, occupying about 80% of the land area, with isolated patches of wooded savannah in the northern and eastern corners. The underlying geology consists of metamorphic rocks, including phyllite, schist, tuff, and greywacke. The soils are mainly forest ochrosols, well-drained soils formed from the weathering of intermediate or moderately acidic rocks. Agriculture is the backbone of Berekum's economy, with over 70% of the population engaged in farming activities. The region has a rich history of cultivating crops such as plantain, maize, cassava, yam, and cocoyam. This agricultural foundation provides a solid base for beekeeping activities, as the diverse flora supports bee populations. The rich natural resources, favorable climate, and agricultural practices make Berekum an ideal location, offering an environment suitable for beekeeping due to the melliferous flowering plants, and thus, studying beekeeping adoption and its associated challenges in the area offers insights into how environmental and socioeconomic factors influence agricultural practices in the region [6].
Figure 1. Study area.
The study utilizes cross-sectional survey data collected from 230 farmers in the Berekum area using a semi-structured questionnaire. A multi-stage sampling technique was employed to ensure a representative sample. First, Berekum was purposively selected as the study area due to its suitable ecology and the presence of the Progressive Beekeepers’ Association, which plays a key role in promoting beekeeping in the area. Next, two farming communities, Nanasuono, and Benkese were selected based on their farming activities and engagement in beekeeping. A simple random sampling technique was then used to select participants for the interviews. Before conducting the interviews, ethical consent was obtained informally from all participating farmers. Each farmer was informed about the purpose of the study, the nature of the questions, and their right to withdraw at any time without consequences. Participation was entirely voluntary, and verbal consent was sought before proceeding with each interview. Farmers were assured of confidentiality, and their responses were recorded anonymously to protect their privacy. This approach ensured that ethical considerations were upheld while maintaining a respectful and transparent research process.
Analytical Estimations
In rural households, decision-making regarding beekeeping will often involve two distinct stages. The first stage is the decision to adopt beekeeping as a livelihood activity, while the second stage may consider the number of bee colonies to establish. Literature highlights two primary models used to analyze such two-tiered decision-making processes: the Heckman two-stage model and the Cragg's double-hurdle model [23]. The Heckman two-stage model assumes that once a farmer decides to adopt beekeeping, the second stage (the intensity of adoption) involves no zero observations. In contrast, the double-hurdle model accounts for the possibility of zero observations in the second stage, reflecting individual choices or constraints that may prevent further participation [5]. For this study, the Heckman two-stage model was deemed appropriate as it aligns with the context where farmers who adopt beekeeping are likely to maintain some level of colony ownership.
To analyze the adoption drivers and intensity of beekeeping among farmers, we employed the Heckman two-step estimation model. This approach addresses potential sample selection bias, where unobservable factors influencing the decision to adopt beekeeping may also affect the intensity of its practice, measured by the number of beehives kept. The Heckman model corrects this bias by incorporating the inverse Mill’s ratio in the second step [25].
Step 1: Adoption of Beekeeping
The first step involves estimating a probit model to determine the likelihood of beekeeping adoption. The dependent variable is binary, indicating whether a farmer has adopted beekeeping (1 = yes, 0 = no). Independent variables include demographic characteristics (e.g., sex, age, and education), household-level factors (e.g., household size, land ownership, and access to credit), and contextual variables (e.g., membership in Farmer-Based Organizations (FBOs), training on beekeeping, and the use of honey for household consumption).
The probit model is specified as:where P is the probability of adopting beekeeping, Φ is the cumulative distribution function of the standard normal distribution, X represents the explanatory variables, and β denotes the coefficients to be estimated.
Step 2: Intensity of Beekeeping
In the second step, a regression model is used to assess the factors influencing the number of beehives kept by adopters. The inverse Mill’s ratio, derived from the first-step estimation, is included as an additional explanatory variable to correct for sample selection bias. The dependent variable is the count of beehives owned by the farmer. The independent variables remain consistent with the first step.
The regression model is specified as:where Y represents the number of beehives, X denotes the explanatory variables, λ is the inverse Mill’s ratio, and ϵ is the error term. The analysis was performed using STATA 17 statistical software, with results summarized in Table 2, Table 3.
To analyze the constraints faced by farmers in beekeeping, we used Kendall’s coefficient of concordance to measure the degree of agreement among respondents regarding the severity of the constraints. This non-parametric test is suitable for ranking data, as it evaluates whether the observed rankings differ significantly from random ordering (Abdi et al., 2021).
The coefficient is computed as follows:Where:
is the sum of squared deviations of item ranks from their mean rank.
is the number of respondents.
is the number of items (constraints).
is the total rank assigned to the item across all respondents.
is the mean rank of constraints.
The test statistic for W is: χ2 = (−1) Wawith degrees of freedom (df) equal to n−1. The chi-square value and its corresponding p-value were used to determine whether the level of agreement among the respondents was statistically significant.
Results and Discussion
Background of Farmers
The analysis of farmers' characteristics (Table 1) highlights distinct differences between adopters and non-adopters of beekeeping. The mean age of the farmers was about 48 years, with no significant difference between adopters (47.68 years) and non-adopters (47.82 years). Household size was also similar, averaging 4.38 members, with no significant variation between the two groups. Farming experience, however, differed slightly, as adopters had an average of 18.34 years of farming experience compared to 16.43 years for non-adopters (p = 0.05). Adopters were also more likely to be household heads (0.93) than non-adopters (0.80), while gender distribution showed no significant difference, with males having a mean of 0.58 of the respondents. Interestingly, adopters had spent more years in the community (46.13 years) compared to non-adopters (40.01 years), which may indicate greater social integration or local knowledge among adopters.
Table 1. Background characteristics of farmers.
| Variables | Description | Pooled | Adopters (94) | Non-Adopters (136) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Age of the farmer | 47.77 | 47.68 | 47.82 | 0.89 |
| Household size | Number of dependents of the respondent | 4.38 | 4.20 | 4.50 | 0.12 |
| Farming experience | Years of being a farmer | 17.21 | 18.34 | 16.43 | 0.05** |
| Years spent in education | Years spent in schooling | 10.07 | 10.24 | 9.94 | 0.69 |
| Years spent in the community | Years of stay as a resident in study area | 43.60 | 46.13 | 40.01 | 0.00*** |
| Sex | 1 if farmer is male, 0 otherwise | 0.58 | 0.63 | 0.54 | 0.21 |
| Household head status | 1 if farmer is household head, 0 otherwise | 0.85 | 0.93 | 0.80 | 0.00*** |
| Access to extension service | 1 if farmer has access to extension service, 0 otherwise | 0.59 | 0.57 | 0.60 | 0.67 |
| Access to credit | 1 if farmer has access to credit, 0 otherwise | 0.44 | 0.48 | 0.41 | 0.32 |
| Member of FBO | 1 if farmer is a member of any farmer-based organization | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.59 | 0.03** |
| Land ownership status | 1 if farmer is the owner of farmland, 0 otherwise | 0.61 | 0.55 | 0.65 | 0.12 |
| Use of honey for home consumption | 1 if farmer utilizes honey for home consumption, 0 otherwise | 0.65 | 0.76 | 0.57 | 0.00*** |
| Training on beekeeping | 1 if farmer has ever received training on beekeeping, 0 otherwise | 0.59 | 0.77 | 0.47 | 0.00*** |
| Number of beehives | Adopters | Mean | Std. Dev. | Min. | Max |
| 94 | 7.79 | 2.73 | 2 | 12 |
NB: mean differences between adopter’s vs non-adopters: ⁎⁎⁎p < 0.01 and *p < 0.1 represent significance at 1% and 10% level of significance, respectively. Source; Field data, 2020
Training in beekeeping was significantly higher among adopters (0.77) than non-adopters (0.47), emphasizing the role of knowledge in adoption. Similarly, a larger proportion of adopters (0.76) reported using honey for home consumption compared to non-adopters (0.57). Membership in farmer-based organizations (FBOs) was slightly more common among the respondents, though access to extension services and credit showed no significant differences. Land ownership status was comparable, with a pooled mean of 0.61. These findings reflect the varying levels of resources, institutional support, and experience among farmers, which provide critical context for understanding adoption decisions. However, these observed differences do not establish causality, necessitating further investigation into the specific drivers of adoption and intensity of beekeeping practices.
The average number of beehives owned among the 94 adopters was approximately 7.8 beehives, with a standard deviation of 2.73. The range of ownership spanned from a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 12 beehives, highlighting moderate variability in colony ownership among adopters. The histogram (Figure 2) below illustrates the distribution of the number of beehives owned by adopters.
Figure 2. Frequency distribution of the number of beehives owned by adopters.
Determinants of Adoption of Beekeeping by Farmers
Table 2 presents the results from the first step of the Heckman probit model, examining factors that influence the adoption of beekeeping among farmers. The variables analyzed include demographic characteristics, farming experience, social connections, and other contextual factors that could affect the likelihood of a farmer engaging in beekeeping.
Table 2. First step Heckman probit model results.
| Adoption of beekeeping | Coefficients | p value |
|---|---|---|
| Demographics: | ||
| Sex of farmer | 0.017 | 0.745 |
| Age | 0.102 | 0.224 |
| Household head | 0.129 | 0.080* |
| Household size | -0.105 | 0.548 |
| Years spent in education | 0.004 | 0.971 |
| Farm-Level and Beekeeping: | ||
| Farming experience | 0.101 | 0.044⁎⁎ |
| Training on beekeeping | 0.101 | 0.994 |
| Years spent in the community | 0.101 | 0.019⁎⁎ |
| Access and Resources: | ||
| Access to extension service | 0.011 | 0.683 |
| Access to credit | -0.024 | 0.311 |
| Member of FBO | 0.116 | 0.007⁎⁎⁎ |
| Land ownership status | -0.016 | 0.627 |
| Utilization: | ||
| Use of honey for home consumption | 0.128 | 0.003⁎⁎⁎ |
| Constant | -1.149 | 0.000⁎⁎⁎ |
⁎⁎⁎p < 0.01 and *p < 0.1 represent significance at 1% and 10% level of significance, respectively.
Source; Field data, 2020
The household head variable, with a p-value of 0.080, demonstrates a marginally significant effect on the likelihood of adopting beekeeping. Although not reaching the standard threshold for statistical significance (p < 0.05), the coefficient suggests that being the head of the household increases the probability of adopting beekeeping. In rural farming communities, household heads typically hold decision-making authority, especially when it comes to livelihood strategies and resource allocation [30]. As such, it makes sense that the head of the household is more likely to consider alternative income-generating activities like beekeeping, which offers a diversification opportunity to sustain household welfare. This observation could also be tied to the notion that heads of households are more attuned to the financial health of the family and may actively seek out additional avenues of income [8]. However, the p-value’s proximity to the significance threshold suggests that the effect is not as pronounced as other factors and may vary depending on the dynamics of the community. The fact that household head status alone does not strongly drive adoption points to the multifaceted nature of the decision-making process in rural contexts, where various other factors such as access to resources, knowledge, and community networks can play a larger role.
One of the more robust predictors of beekeeping adoption is farming experience, with a significant p-value of 0.044, showing a positive relationship between years of farming experience and the likelihood of adopting beekeeping. This result is not surprising, given that beekeeping is a highly specialized agricultural practice that requires both knowledge of the technical aspects of hive management and an understanding of environmental factors influencing bee behavior. Experienced farmers are likely to possess the skills needed to navigate these complexities, making them better suited to adopt and manage beekeeping operations [18]. Furthermore, farmers with more experience are generally more receptive to new agricultural innovations, as they have likely encountered a range of challenges and learned how to adapt. For them, beekeeping might be seen not only as a profitable venture but also as a complementary practice to their existing agricultural activities [19]. This informs the importance of harnessing practical knowledge within farming communities, as those with a deeper understanding of agricultural practices are more likely to experiment with and successfully integrate new technologies, like beekeeping, into their operations. For policy interventions aiming to encourage beekeeping, emphasizing skills training and leveraging the experiences of seasoned farmers could be an effective strategy. The positive coefficient here reflects the critical role that practical experience plays in the adoption of innovations in agriculture, particularly in rural settings where learning-by-doing is often the norm [18].
The variable “years spent in the community” has a coefficient of 0.101 and a p-value of 0.019, indicating a significant relationship with beekeeping adoption. Farmers who have lived longer in a community may have stronger local networks, better knowledge of the environmental and economic conditions, and greater trust within the community, all of which can encourage the adoption of beekeeping. Long-term residents may also be more attuned to the challenges and opportunities in their local agricultural systems, which can make them more receptive to diversifying into beekeeping [9]. The stronger sense of belonging and understanding of local resources and infrastructure may also facilitate the adoption of new practices [16]. This highlights the importance of local knowledge and community ties in the decision-making processes of farmers, suggesting that newcomers to rural areas may face barriers in adopting beekeeping due to limited familiarity with the local environment and support systems.
Membership in Farmer-Based Organizations (FBOs) is another key factor influencing the adoption of beekeeping, with a highly significant p-value of 0.007. This finding highlights the importance of social networks and collective action in facilitating the adoption of new farming practices. FBOs typically offer a range of benefits to their members, including access to training, shared resources, networking opportunities, and group marketing schemes [15]. In the context of beekeeping, these organizations can provide critical support by facilitating access to knowledge, technologies, and even markets for honey and other bee products. Farmers who are part of an FBO are more likely to be exposed to beekeeping practices and may have a greater sense of confidence in their ability to succeed, given the shared experiences and resources within the group [15]. The strong significance of this variable suggests that the collective nature of FBOs plays a crucial role in overcoming the barriers to beekeeping adoption, which often include a lack of technical knowledge, financial resources, and market access. In many rural areas, where access to formal extension services and credit may be limited, FBOs provide an essential platform for disseminating agricultural innovations [29]. The positive effect of FBO membership emphasizes the need to strengthen and expand these organizations to facilitate the broader adoption of sustainable agricultural practices like beekeeping.
The variable use of honey for home consumption is another highly significant predictor of beekeeping adoption, with a p-value of 0.003. This finding suggests that farmers who already use honey within their households are significantly more likely to engage in beekeeping. The logic behind this is straightforward; farmers who consume honey are likely to be familiar with its benefits and value, which increases their willingness to produce it themselves. In rural communities, where food security and self-sufficiency are often top priorities, using honey for home consumption may reflect an understanding of its nutritional and economic value [6]. For these farmers, beekeeping is not just an economic activity but also a way to enhance household well-being. The adoption of beekeeping among these farmers could stem from the desire to reduce reliance on external sources of honey, thus increasing household food security while also generating an additional income stream [21]. Moreover, farmers who already use honey may have a greater appreciation for the product's versatility and may be more motivated to explore its commercial potential. This insight points out the importance of leveraging farmers' existing practices and knowledge when introducing new agricultural innovations. By tapping into the existing culture of honey use in rural communities, interventions can encourage the uptake of beekeeping as a natural extension of these pre-existing behaviors, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful adoption.
Intensity of Beekeeping Adoption
Table 3 presents the second step of the Heckman regression model, which analyzes the factors influencing the number of beehives maintained by farmers who have already adopted beekeeping. The significance of the inverse Mill’s ratio (p = 0.084) in the second step suggests that selection bias may be present, justifying the use of the Heckman two-step model. Additionally, the Wald χ2 test statistic (11.80; p < 0.01) indicates that the explanatory variables as a group significantly explain the intensity of beekeeping. The results shed light on the elements that not only determine a farmer's decision to engage in beekeeping but also shape the scale of their beekeeping operations once they have adopted this practice.
Table 3. Second step of the Heckman regression model results.
| Number of beehives | Coefficient | p value |
|---|---|---|
| Demographics: | ||
| Sex of farmer | 0.015 | 0.943 |
| Age | 0.004 | 0.786 |
| Household head | -0.404 | 0.174 |
| Household size | 0.002 | 0.973 |
| Years spent in education | 0.023 | 0.855 |
| Farm-Level and Beekeeping: | ||
| Farming experience | 0.141 | 0.005⁎⁎⁎ |
| Training on beekeeping | 0.677 | 0.000⁎⁎⁎ |
| Years spent in the community | 0.132 | 0.001⁎⁎⁎ |
| Access and Resources: | ||
| Access to extension service | 0.107 | 0.576 |
| Access to credit | 0.082 | 0.663 |
| Member of FBO | 0.183 | 0.063* |
| Land ownership status | -0.178 | 0.343 |
| Utilization: | ||
| Use of honey for home consumption | 0.501 | 0.016⁎⁎ |
| Constant | 0.619 | 0.000⁎⁎⁎ |
| Inverse Mill’s ratio | -0.104 | 0.084* |
| Wald χ2 = 11.80 Prob>chi2 =0.000⁎⁎⁎ | ||
⁎⁎⁎p < 0.01 and *p < 0.1 represent significance at 1% and 10% level of significance, respectively
Source; Field data, 2020
The coefficient for farming experience is 0.141, with a p-value of 0.005, suggesting a strong and statistically significant positive relationship with the number of beehives. This aligns with the adoption step, where farming experience was also significant in encouraging the uptake of beekeeping. In the second step, the positive relationship between experience and the number of beehives shows that farmers who have accumulated more years of farming expertise tend to scale up their beekeeping operations. Experienced farmers possess a wealth of knowledge that enables them to better manage hives, address challenges such as pest management, and optimize honey production [29]. Their understanding of local ecological conditions, seasonal variations, and the agricultural environment provides them with the insight needed to successfully expand their beekeeping ventures [12]. As seen in the adoption step, these farmers are better positioned to explore diverse income sources, including beekeeping, which ultimately facilitates the growth of their beekeeping operations. The ability to manage more hives effectively is also indicative of their familiarity with farm management practices, further supporting the argument for targeted training programs aimed at increasing the capacity of less experienced farmers to scale their operations [10].
Similarly, years spent in the community (coefficient of 0.132, p-value of 0.001) remain a significant predictor of the number of beehives in this model. In the adoption step, this variable was also significant, highlighting that long-term residents possess a deeper understanding of local conditions, both ecological and social [18]. Their extended stay in the community allows them to build stronger relationships with local resources, such as extension services, community cooperatives, and support networks, which can facilitate the expansion of beekeeping activities. In the second step, the positive relationship between years spent in the community and the number of beehives emphasizes that these farmers are more likely to have a broader network and better access to resources that enable them to scale up their beekeeping operations [19]. Moreover, their deep-rooted knowledge of local flora, beekeeping practices, and environmental cycles allows them to manage multiple hives more effectively, leading to the potential for larger beekeeping operations [6]. This suggests that strengthening community ties and promoting knowledge sharing are essential strategies for supporting the scaling up of beekeeping in rural areas.
The use of honey for home consumption (coefficient of 0.501, p-value of 0.016) is another significant factor influencing the number of beehives. This finding complements the results from the adoption step, where farmers who consume honey at home are more likely to adopt beekeeping. The positive relationship between home consumption of honey and the number of beehives suggests that farmers who are familiar with the value and uses of honey are more inclined to expand their beekeeping operations. Initially, farmers may start by producing honey for household use, but as they recognize the surplus potential, they are more likely to scale up production for sale or barter [6]. The motivation to meet household needs, combined with the economic benefits of selling surplus honey, encourages the maintenance of a larger number of hives. This reflects a self-sufficiency model where beekeeping serves both as a means of personal consumption and as a potential source of income. The larger scale of operations can thus be seen as a natural progression for farmers who have already experienced the benefits of beekeeping within their households [18].
The significant positive relationship between training on beekeeping (coefficient of 0.677, p-value of 0.000, and the number of beehives further reinforces the importance of education and skill development. In the adoption step, training on beekeeping was not significant, possibly because adoption may depend on a broader set of factors, including awareness and initial interest. However, once farmers decide to engage in beekeeping, training becomes a critical factor in determining the scale of their operations [29]. Farmers who receive training are better equipped with the technical knowledge to manage multiple hives effectively, control diseases and pests, and optimize honey production. This increased capacity allows them to handle the complexities of running a larger beekeeping operation [18]. The positive coefficient for training suggests that beekeepers who invest in learning are more likely to expand their operations, underscoring the need for ongoing education and capacity-building programs to ensure that farmers can manage more hives successfully and profitably.
Lastly, membership in a Farmer-Based Organization (FBO) shows a positive relationship with the number of beehives, with a coefficient of 0.183 and a p-value of 0.063, indicating marginal significance. This finding aligns with the adoption step, where membership in FBOs was also significant. FBOs provide farmers with collective resources, knowledge-sharing platforms, and access to group-based support that can facilitate the expansion of beekeeping operations [17]. Through these organizations, farmers can access affordable beekeeping equipment, receive technical assistance, and gain insights from peers, all of which contribute to scaling their beekeeping activities. FBOs also provide a platform for farmers to collectively market their products, reducing individual risk and enhancing the profitability of their operations [21]. While the significance is marginal, the trend suggests that strengthening FBOs could play a crucial role in facilitating the growth of beekeeping by helping farmers overcome barriers related to resource access and knowledge gaps.
Constraints Faced by Adopters
The rankings of constraints faced by farmers in beekeeping, as shown in Table 4, provide critical insights into the challenges limiting the adoption and scaling of this activity. Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance indicates a moderate level of agreement among respondents on the rankings, and the chi-square test confirms that this consensus is statistically significant. This implies that farmers share a relatively common perception of the key constraints affecting beekeeping practices.
Table 4. Constraints faced by beekeepers.
| Constraints | Mean | Rank |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of capital for expansion | 1.70 | 1st |
| Lack of honey processing machine | 2.29 | 2nd |
| Shortage of bee flora | 3.90 | 3rd |
| Incidence of pest and predators | 4.98 | 4th |
| Deforestation and bush fires | 5.79 | 5th |
| Abscondment of bees | 6.09 | 6th |
| Temperature and rainfall variability | 7.04 | 7th |
| Bee sting | 7.50 | 8th |
| High cost of materials | 7.54 | 9th |
| Theft of hive products | 8.16 | 10th |
| N = 94; Kendall's Wa = 0.554; Chi-Square = 468.675; df = 9; Asymp. Sig = 0.000 | ||
Source; Field data, 2020
The rankings of constraints in beekeeping highlight critical challenges that farmers face in expanding and sustaining their operations. The highest-ranked constraint, lack of capital for expansion, is a significant barrier that limits the ability of farmers to scale up their beekeeping activities [7]. Without adequate financial resources, farmers are unable to invest in necessary infrastructure, such as additional hives, protective gear, and equipment, which are essential for increasing honey production and improving the quality of their products. This financial limitation is often compounded by limited access to affordable credit, which restricts the ability of farmers to secure funds for growth [18].
Closely following the capital constraint is the lack of honey processing machinery, which plays a pivotal role in adding value to honey and other bee products, such as beeswax, propolis, royal jelly, and pollen. Without access to proper equipment, farmers are unable to efficiently process raw honey into a variety of saleable products like bottled honey, honeycomb, creamed honey, or beeswax candles, limiting their income potential. Honey processing also involves filtering, extracting, and pasteurizing processes that are essential for ensuring product quality and safety for consumers [29]. The absence of such infrastructure stifles not only the production of diverse honey-based products but also the ability to meet market demands and food safety standards. As a result, even when there is a willingness to engage in beekeeping, farmers often find it difficult to expand their operations, enhance product quality, or tap into higher-value markets [12]. This challenge is particularly relevant for smallholder beekeepers who may lack the financial means to invest in the necessary technology and equipment. Consequently, the capacity to process and market honey effectively remains a significant barrier, limiting the potential for income generation and growth within the honey industry. This limitation may also open rural informal economies and livelihood diversification prospects, especially in situations where capital issues are managed, and participants have the resources to process honey products into different forms. It also offers pathways for local fabricators to see the possibility of designing a user-friendly processing machine that are locally adaptable in terms of cost and efficiency.
Environmental factors, such as the shortage of bee flora and the impacts of deforestation and bushfires, are also ranked highly among the constraints faced by beekeepers. Bee flora, comprising a variety of plants that provide nectar and pollen, is crucial for the survival and productivity of beekeeping enterprises [12]. Bees rely on diverse floral resources throughout the seasons to sustain healthy colonies and produce high-quality honey. However, the degradation of ecosystems through activities like deforestation and the widespread occurrence of bushfires significantly reduces the availability of forage plants, leading to poor hive productivity [15]. The loss of key habitats further threatens not only bee populations but also the livelihoods of beekeepers who depend on thriving colonies for income generation. Moreover, the changing climate patterns and unpredictable weather associated with environmental degradation exacerbate these challenges [7]. For instance, bushfires, often intensified by droughts or poor land management practices, can rapidly destroy large areas of bee habitat, leaving bees with insufficient resources to forage. This directly impacts honey production and may lead to colony collapse. The consequences are not just immediate but have long-term effects on the sustainability of beekeeping as an enterprise.
Biological challenges, including pests, predators, and the phenomenon of bee abscondment, further exacerbate the difficulties that beekeepers face in maintaining healthy and productive hives. Pests such as varroa mites, wax moths, and small hive beetles can weaken or even destroy colonies, while predators like honey badgers can cause physical damage to hives, sometimes resulting in complete loss [15]. In addition to these pests and predators, bee abscondment where bees abandon their hives often signal stress caused by environmental factors, poor hive conditions, or inadequate management practices. This behavior can be a significant setback for beekeepers, as it reduces honey yields and, in some cases, may necessitate the establishment of new colonies [12]. To counteract these challenges, beekeepers must adopt more robust management practices, including regular pest monitoring, the use of integrated pest management (IPM) strategies, and enhancing hive security from predators. Furthermore, better awareness of hive conditions, including temperature, humidity, and overall colony health, is crucial to prevent abscondment. Beekeepers also need to ensure they have the necessary resources, such as protective barriers or mite treatments, to safeguard against the damaging effects of pests and predators.
Climatic conditions, particularly temperature and rainfall variability also play a significant role in the success of beekeeping operations. Unpredictable weather patterns, such as extended periods of drought or heavy rainfall, can disrupt the natural flowering cycles of plants that bees rely on for nectar [11]. This reduction in nectar availability can directly affect hive productivity, leading to lower honey yields. Additionally, extreme temperatures can stress bee colonies, potentially leading to reduced activity or even colony collapse. The increasing unpredictability of weather patterns, driven by climate change, is likely to escalate these challenges, making it essential for beekeepers to adopt adaptive strategies [21]. These may include selecting more resilient bee species, diversifying forage sources, and improving hive design to better withstand fluctuating weather conditions.
Bee stings, though an inherent risk in beekeeping, were ranked eighth among the ten challenges identified by farmers in this study. This ranking suggests that while stings are a concern, they are overshadowed by more pressing issues such as equipment access and market constraints. Farmers’ ability to rank stings lower may indicate an adaptation to the risks through experience or the use of protective gear, as noted by Nat Schouten & John Lloyed, [22], who emphasized the role of training in reducing sting-related incidents. However, the risk of stings still presents physical and psychological challenges, particularly for novice beekeepers. Similarly, Močnik et al. [20] highlight that bee stings, while not the foremost barrier in the context of our study, remain a deterrent for many, especially those without access to adequate protective equipment. Providing affordable protective clothing and sting management training could alleviate this concern and make beekeeping more accessible to new adopters.
The theft of hive products, while less frequent than other challenges, can still pose a significant threat to the financial viability of beekeepers, especially in small rural communities where farm security is often limited. Honey, beeswax, and other bee products are valuable assets, and their theft can lead to considerable financial losses for beekeepers who rely on these products for their income [18]. In these communities, where farm security is mainly the responsibility of the farmers themselves, beekeepers may struggle to protect their hives from opportunistic theft. Basic security measures, such as securing hives with locks, placing them in more secluded or hard-to-reach areas, or surrounding the hives with fences or thorn bushes, are commonly used to reduce the risk of theft [29]. Moreover, a sense of community responsibility and awareness about the value of beekeeping can help discourage theft.
Rethinking Adoption and Intensity of Beekeeping in Agrarian Systems
The results present empirical insights into how smallholder farmers navigate the adoption and intensification of beekeeping under conditions of resource scarcity, institutional fragility, and ecological stress. Unlike previous research that often frames beekeeping adoption as a straightforward entrepreneurial decision, our findings reveal a far more intricate process, where household-level subsistence needs, social network embeddedness, and systemic structural constraints interact dynamically to shape both the decision to adopt and the capacity to scale up operations. A novel contribution of this study is the identification of “subsistence-driven scaling pathways”, where household honey consumption acts not merely as a motivator for adoption but as a foundation upon which farmers build confidence, knowledge, and gradual intensification. This perspective challenges the dominant market-centric narratives that portray adoption solely as a function of profit-seeking behavior. Instead, it reveals that livelihood diversification strategies like beekeeping are often initiated through household consumption imperatives, which evolve into scalable enterprises as farmers develop experiential knowledge and access enabling resources.
Furthermore, by distinguishing between factors influencing adoption and those driving intensity, the study reveals a critical gap in existing adoption frameworks. For instance, while training on beekeeping does not strongly predict initial uptake, it becomes pivotal in scaling operations, pointing to a “post-adoption capability trap”, where farmers, having adopted, lack the technical and infrastructural capacity to scale. This insight shifts the policy discourse from promoting adoption as an end in itself to a more nuanced understanding of adoption as an entry point into a broader process of enterprise growth, which is heavily conditioned by access to knowledge, infrastructure, and social capital. Equally significant are the findings on systemic constraints, particularly the lack of honey processing facilities and environmental degradation, which act as structural bottlenecks. These challenges are not incidental but are fundamental governance failures in rural value chains, where farmers are integrated into production without the necessary infrastructural and institutional support to capture value. The degradation of bee flora, driven by deforestation and bushfires, further illustrates the ecological vulnerability of apiculture, making a strong case for embedding beekeeping interventions within landscape restoration and conservation frameworks. The results advance the literature by proposing a socio-ecological adoption-intensity lens, which conceptualizes beekeeping not as an isolated economic activity but as an eco-enterprise deeply contingent on household needs, social institutions, and environmental systems. Methodologically, the application of the Heckman two-step model provides a robust empirical framework for disentangling adoption from scaling dynamics, an area where existing studies remain largely descriptive.
Conclusion
This study provides valuable insights into the determinants of beekeeping adoption and intensity, with significant implications for policy and practice. The findings inform the role of targeted interventions to enhance the adoption and scale-up of beekeeping among farmers. Policies should prioritize the integration of beekeeping into broader rural development and income diversification strategies by addressing technical, financial, and environmental challenges. Specifically, the critical role of training in driving both adoption and intensity highlights the need for investment in tailored capacity-building programs. Training initiatives should equip farmers with practical skills in hive management, honey production, and pest control, ensuring their ability to scale operations effectively. Moreover, strengthening Farmer-Based Organizations (FBOs) to provide resources such as equipment, market access, and collective bargaining power can address barriers like limited capital and market constraints. Policies should encourage participation in such groups to enhance collective action and resource-sharing.
Incentives, including subsidies for beekeeping inputs and access to credit, are essential for enabling farmers to overcome financial hurdles and invest in necessary equipment for expanding operations. Facilitating access to affordable honey processing machinery through public-private partnerships can also create opportunities for farmers to access higher-value markets, thereby increasing profitability. Addressing environmental challenges, such as deforestation and bushfires, requires the integration of sustainable land management practices into rural development policies. Conservation efforts to preserve bee flora, alongside community-level education on the ecological importance of bees, can mitigate the impact of environmental degradation on beekeeping. Simultaneously, policies must incorporate strategies to manage biological challenges like pests and predators, which threaten colony health and productivity. With a supportive policy environment that addresses these interconnected challenges, policymakers can unlock the potential of beekeeping as a tool for income diversification, rural resilience, and sustainable livelihoods. Integrating beekeeping into national agricultural strategies can contribute significantly to rural development while promoting biodiversity and environmental sustainability.
대화 참여하기