Abstract
Background:
Honey bees (Apis mellifera) are vital for pollination, plant survival, and crop production. Poor disclosure of farmers’ perceptions of bee health and mortality limits interventions for risk reduction. This study aims to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of beekeepers on pesticide risk mitigation and bee mortality in Southwest Ethiopia.
Methods:
A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted on 420 randomly selected beekeepers. The data were collected through interviews using a structured questionnaire. Factors associated with their intention and action to mitigate the risks were analyzed using logistic regression. Explanatory variables with a P-value of .05 or less were included in the multivariable model, and variables with a P-value less than .05 were reported as factors associated with the outcome variable. The Hosmer and Lemeshow tests were used to check model fit.
Results:
The study found that overall 54.3% of beekeepers practice safe beekeeping and adopt risk mitigation measures. The study found that beekeeping training [AOR: 3.85; 95% C.I. 2.19-6.76], knowledge of pesticide risks on bee health [AOR: 4.18; C.I. 2.44-7.16], and attitudes toward risks of pesticides on bee health [AOR: 2.41; 95% C.I. 1.51-3.84] significantly influenced bee mortality risk mitigation practices. Those with training were 3.85 times more likely to practice risk mitigation, while those with good knowledge were 4.18 times more likely, and those with positive attitudes toward risks of pesticides on bee health were 2.41 times more likely to practice.
Conclusion and recommendations:
The study reveals that half of beekeepers practice safe beekeeping and adopt risk mitigation measures, influenced by training, knowledge of pesticide risks, and attitudes. Key apiculture players can benefit from behavioral interventions to improve knowledge and attitudes, thereby mitigating bee mortality risks.
Introduction
Honeybees (Apis mellifera) are crucial for ecosystem maintenance, pollination, and crop production. 1 Over the past 2 decades, global colony losses have raised concerns about honey bee health among beekeepers, scientists, and the general public. 2 The honeybees are facing threats like pesticide exposure, leading to mortality and colony decline. 3 For instance, the Apis mellifera’s health may be affected by different factors in the ecosystem, both man-made and natural.
The honeybee is experiencing a significant reduction in colonies due to various factors, including pests, diseases, climate change, and agricultural practices. 4 Nutrition is crucial for healthy honey bee colonies, promoting larvae protein and preventing starvation. Risks include starvation, monocultures, genetically modified crops, and pesticides. 5 Currently, the pesticide use in Ethiopia significantly impacts bee mortality, 6 with chemicals like carbaryl, malathion, diazinon, fipronil, chlorpyrifos, and profenofos posing risks to bee populations in agricultural settings.7 -9 Despite these risks, many farmers lack awareness about protecting bees during pesticide application. 10 Farmers and beekeepers often lack knowledge on protecting bees during pesticide application, which poses a significant challenge to effective risk mitigation strategies. 11
In Ethiopia, the honey bee population is estimated to be between 7 and 10 million colonies, with an annual production of honey and beeswax over 54 000 and 5000 tons, respectively.12,13 Pesticide exposure in Ethiopia is causing widespread mortality, colony decline, and reduced honey production. The widespread use of agrochemicals, 14 including pesticides, contaminates hive products and environments, posing a serious threat to honey bee colonies. 9 The decline in honey bee colonies results in substantial economic losses for beekeepers 15 and the apiculture sector, affecting local livelihoods and national honey production and export revenues.
Pesticide risk mitigation in beekeeping is influenced by factors like hive type, agroecological zones, and pest presence. 16 Poor management practices like inadequate inspections and uncontrolled swarming worsen colony decline. 6 The survival of honey bee colonies partly depends on the perception and action of beekeepers, but there is limited data on their knowledge, awareness, and risk mitigation practices on the bee mortality risks in Ethiopia. Understanding beekeepers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices on risk mitigation to reduce bee mortality and enhance honey products is crucial.
In Ethipia, honey beekeeping is performed mostly through traditional keeping practices, 17 and the attitudes of the farmers on honey bee colony loss and mortality are poorly disclosed, which limits interventions on the reduction of the risks. Few studies have been conducted, especially in the southwestern region. More importantly, the risk mitigation practice by beekeepers has a significant impact on reducing the risks. Therefore, this study aimed to assess beekeepers’ knowledge, attitudes, risk mitigation practices, and factors associated with the risk mitigation practices in the southwestern part of Ethiopia. The results from this study may contribute to the safe production of honey products as evidence of the risk mitigation in the beekeeper’s practice to sustain bee health and productivity. Additionally, it may serve as a baseline for future mitigation of honey bee health and colony loss.
Methods and Materials
Study Area
The study was conducted in 4 selected zones in southwestern Ethiopia, primarily Keffa, Bench Maji, Sheka, and Jimma [Figure 1]. The zones were selected purposefully based on their high potential for honey production in the southwest of Ethiopia. These zones have strong cooperatives and unions for honey production, higher honey flora availability, and market dominance both domestically and for export purposes. They are considered the honey belt of Ethiopia and have favorable geo-ecological characteristics. 18
Map of study area in Keffa, Bench Maji, Sheka, and Jimma Zones in south-west Ethiopia.
Study Design and Period
A cross-sectional study was conducted from December 1, 2023, to January 10, 2024. The study was conducted among 4 selected zones: Keffa, Bench Maji, Sheka, and Jimma, in southwestern Ethiopia, using a structured questionnaire.
Sample Size Determination
The sample size was determined using a single population proportion formula 19 with the following assumptions: P = was the proportion of 50% since there were no previously identified beekeeper perceptions in the study area, and Z α /2 = refers to the cut of the value of the normal distribution and is based on a 95% confidence interval.
Therefore,
Sampling Techniques
The data were collected from the Keffa, Bench Maji, Sheka, and Jimma zones. The households were selected from the total number of beekeepers in the selected zones. From the 3 zones, eleven (11) districts were identified with a respected number of beekeepers. The data about the number of beekeepers in each district was obtained from the zone agricultural office. Accordingly, the number of beekeepers in the districts was: Gere (32 333), Limu (28 845), Sigmo (15 121), Goma (34 919), Shebe Sombo (21 542), Gimbo (6667), Channa (5457), Gesha (19 357), Sheka (22 175), Masha (7338), and Gura Farda (10 042). The number of households (beekeepers) in each district was proportionally allocated from the respective districts. The beekeepers were selected randomly using the lottery method, using the lists of the beekeepers for each district as a sampling frame. The beekeeper in the family was the respondent, and if the head was not participating in beekeeping practice, a family member working as a beekeeper (age 18 or older) was the respondent.
Data Collection Tools and Procedures
A standardized structured questionnaire was designed to gather data on various aspects of beekeeping practice, knowledge of the beekeepers on pesticide risks on bee health, attitudes of the beekeepers on safe practice bee mortality, and risk mitigation practice on pesticide effects on bee health. The questionnaire included sociodemographic characteristics, beekeeping practices, knowledge of pesticide risks, attitudes toward pesticide impact, and risk mitigation practices among beekeepers. Accordingly, sociodemographic characteristics capture respondents’ sex, age, marital status, education level, beekeeping experience, family size, training, and primary economic activities. Beekeeping practices explore hive types, apiary counts, hive inspections, movement patterns, treatment against pests, and awareness of stressors such as climate change and pesticide exposure. Knowledge questions gage awareness of pesticides’ impact on bee health, emphasizing exposure risks, plant selection, and environmental pesticide presence. Attitudes assess perceptions of pesticide-related impacts on colonies, human health, and the environment, including the role of agricultural and beekeeping-related pesticides in colony mortality. The risk mitigation practices questions include actions taken by beekeepers, such as adopting safe practices, encouraging integrated pest management, monitoring bee health, using appropriate hive types, and fostering pesticide-free habitats (Annex 1).
Data Collection
The data was collected through face-to-face interviews using a structured questionnaire translated into ‘Afan Oromo’ and ‘Amharic’ languages. Eight trained agricultural extension workers and 4 environmental health experts participated in the fieldwork. The workers were diploma holders in animal science and experienced in community-based surveys, particularly in agricultural extensions.
Beekeepers’ knowledge of pesticide risks on bee health was measured using a 5-item Likert scale of 5 levels (strongly agree = 5, agree = 4, neutral = 3, disagree = 2, and strongly disagree = 1) questions. Similarly, a 7-item Likert scale with 5 levels (strongly agree = 5, agree = 4, neutral = 3, disagree = 2, and strongly disagree = 1) measured beekeepers’ attitudes toward pesticide impacts on bee health. The beekeeper’s risk mitigation practices were measured by 7 items with a Likert scale of 5 levels that shows the level of practice from never to always practice (always = 5, often = 4, sometimes = 3, rarely = 2, and never = 1).
The overall knowledge of beekeepers on pesticide risks was calculated using the mean as a cut point, where values equal to or below the mean were assumed to be poor knowledge and values above the mean were good knowledge. The overall beekeeper’s attitudes toward pesticide impacts on bee health were calculated using the mean as a cut point, where values equal to or below the mean were assumed to be negative attitudes and values above the mean were good attitudes. The beekeeper’s risk mitigation practices were measured using the mean as a cut point, where values equal to or below the mean were assumed as poor practice and values above the mean were good practice.
Data Quality Assurance
Data quality was ensured through training for data collectors, standardization of collection tools, and close supervision during fieldwork. The 2-day training was provided for both, enhancing the accuracy and completeness of data every day.
Data Processing and Analysis
The data were entered and analyzed using SPSS version 20. 20 Descriptive analysis: frequency and percentages were used for categorical variables, and mean and standard deviation were used for continuous variables. Accordingly, the categorical variables sex, marital status, educational status, and age category were analyzed using frequency and percentage. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors related to risk mitigation practices among beekeepers on bee mortality (ie, the outcome variable). All explanatory variables associated with control risks in the bivariate analysis with a P-value of less than .05 were included in the final analysis. The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) and the 95% confidence interval [95% CI] were used to determine the effect of potentially associated variables on the outcome variable (risk mitigation practice) by controlling confounders. All variables with a P-value of less than .05 were considered to have statistically significant associations with the outcome variable. The Hosmer and Lemeshow tests were used to check the model’s goodness of fit.
Ethical Consideration
The study’s ethical protocol was approved by Jimma University’s Institutional Research Ethical Review Board (IRB). Written informed consent was obtained from the study participants before data collection; all the records were noted in full anonymity, not including personal identifiers, and secured in all processes of the data handling and analysis.
Results
Socio-Demographic Characteristics
The study involved 420 beekeepers (response rate of 99.5%), with 89% being male and a mean age of 43 years. Over half attended secondary school or higher education (66.5%), and most of them were married (89.8%). More than half had family members of 5 or above (61.4%). Beekeeping is a primary activity, with 54% engaged solely in it, 45.2% combining it with crop farming, and 0.7% incorporating livestock. The majority (94.5%) had been participating for 5 or more years in beekeeping practice, and only 22.86% received formal beekeeping training (Table 1).
Socio-demographic characteristics of study participants in 3 selected zones in Southwest Ethiopia, 2023 (N = 420).
Beekeeping Practice in South-West Ethiopia
Of the 420 beekeepers who participated in this study, nearly half of them (45.5%) used modern methods, and more than half (54.5%) used traditional methods. Most beekeepers operate on a very small scale, with 70.2% managing 1 to 15 colonies, while only 5.2% work on a commercial scale of 151 to 500 colonies. A majority (64%) move their bees throughout the year, and most inspect their hives every 2 to 3 days during the active season (82.4%). The majority of them (75.9%) have experienced colony losses within the last 12 months (Table 2).
Beekeeping practices among beekeepers in 3 selected zones in southwest Ethiopia, 2023 (N = 420).
Knowledge of Beekeepers on Pesticide Risks on Bee Health
Concerning the beekeeper knowledge regarding pesticide impacts on bees, The majority of beekeepers agree that bees are exposed to pesticides that affect their health, with 65.7% agreeing or strongly agreeing that agrochemicals can kill bees. However, opinions vary on whether bees selectively feed on pesticide-free plants, have direct exposure to pesticides, and whether pesticides have no effect. The majority (71.9%) of beekeepers have poor knowledge about pesticide impacts, with only 28.1% showing good knowledge (Table 3).
knowledge of beekeepers on pesticide risks on bee health in the selected zones in south-west Ethiopia, 2023 (N = 420).
Attitudes of Beekeepers on Risks of Pesticides on Bee Health
In the current study, the majority (63.6%) of beekeepers disagreed that bee colonies are heavily affected by agricultural pesticides. Nearly half (47.6%) agreed, and 44.3% strongly agreed, that pesticides used in beekeeping significantly impact their colonies. Approximately 52.1% agreed that high colony mortality could be attributed to pesticide contamination and wax accumulation. Additionally, 52.4% strongly agreed that pesticide use poses health risks to humans, while 53.6% strongly agreed about the compounded impact of multiple pesticides. In contrast, 52.6% disagreed that pesticides cause environmental contamination. Overall, 62.9% of beekeepers expressed a negative attitude toward the risks pesticides pose to bee health (Table 4).
Attitudes of beekeepers on risks of pesticides on bee health in 3 selected zones in south-west Ethiopia, 2023 (N = 420).
Risk Mitigation Practice Among Beekeepers
The study reveals that a majority (63.6%) consistently practice safe beekeeping to prevent colony weakening, with 21.7% often doing so. However, only 19% promote integrated pest management practices, and 45% do so occasionally. Disinfection of beekeeping equipment is performed by 46.2%, with 31.7% using chemicals. 42.9% adopt hive types that minimize bee mortality, while 33.3% sometimes use such measures. Pesticide-free wildflower habitats are practiced by 41%, and 38.8% avoid pesticide use on farms. Overall, 54.3% of respondents have good risk mitigation practices (Table 5).
Beekeepers risk mitigation practice among beekeepers on bee mortality from pesticide exposure in 3 selected zones in south-west Ethiopia, 2023 (N = 420).
Factors Associated with Risk Mitigation Practice Among Beekeepers
The factors associated with risk mitigation practice were analyzed using logistic regression. In the crude analysis, received training on beekeeping, type of hive they have, experience of bee colony loss in the last 12 months, knowledge of bee mortality risks, and attitudes toward the risk of pesticide on bee health were significant at a P-value less than .05 and included in the multivariable analysis. In the final model, receiving beekeeping training [AOR: 3.85; 95% C.I. 2.19-6.76], knowledge of pesticide risks on bee health [AOR: 4.18; C.I. 2.44-7.16], and attitudes toward risks of pesticides on bee health [AOR: 2.41; 95% C.I. 1.51-3.84] were significantly associated with bee mortality risk mitigation practice after controlling for confounders. Accordingly, beekeepers who received training were 3.85 times more likely to practice risk mitigation; those who had good knowledge about pesticide risks on bee health were 4.18 times more likely to practice reducing the risk of bee colony mortality; and those who had negative perceptions of the risk of pesticides on bee health were 2.4 times more likely to practice mitigation of the risks on bee mortality in the setting (Table 6).
Factors associated with risk mitigation practices for bee mortality from pesticide exposure among beekeepers in 3 selected zones in southwest Ethiopia in 2023.
*Significant at P-value less than .001.
Discussion
This community-based cross-sectional study was conducted among randomly selected beekeepers in southwest Ethiopia. The study aimed to assess the beekeeper’s knowledge, attitudes, bee mortality risk mitigation practices, and factors related to the risk mitigation practice. The study surveyed 420 beekeepers (99.5% response rate), predominantly male (89%), with a mean age of 43 years. The majority of beekeepers engage in beekeeping as their primary livelihood, with 54% solely engaged, 45.2% combining with crop farming, and 0.7% incorporating livestock. The majority (94.5%) of the participants were involved in the beekeeping practice for the last 5 years or more, though only 22.86% had received formal training. More than half (54.5%) used traditional methods. This finding is supported by a review study on beekeeping practices in Ethiopia that shows that the majority of them were traditional methods.13,21 Most beekeepers operate on a very small scale, with 70.2% managing 1 to 15 colonies, while only 5.2% work on a commercial scale of 151 to 500 colonies. A majority (64%) move their bees throughout the year, and most inspect their hives every 2 to 3 days during the active season (82.4%). The majority of them (75.9%) have experienced colony losses within the last 12 months. This finding is consistent with the study finding from similar studies that most beekeepers recognize the relative risks of their bee mortalities.22 -25
The beekeeper’s knowledge about pesticide impacts on bee health. The current study participants’ knowledge of pesticide risks on bee mortality was poor for 71.9% of them, with only 28.1% showing good knowledge. Similarly, a significant proportion, 62.9% of beekeepers, had a negative attitude toward the risks pesticides pose to bee health, and only 39% felt it was a problem. This lack of awerness alos reported similar studies conducted some part of Ethiopia. For instace study from Chilga district north Gonder, 26 finding from East and west Hararghe zones, 27 and finding from East wollega zone. 28 This study finding also onsistent with similar studies from Benin, 29 Uganda, 30 and Ethiopia.21,28,31
The current study found that about 54.3% of beekeepers practice risk mitigation measures that minimize bee mortality. In line with the current study’s finding similar studies27,32 also reported a low percentage of beekeepers applying risk mitigation strategies. This level may be attributed to a lack of training and awareness, raising the possibility that these practices are not extensively used. Our finding also reveled that receiving beekeeping training, knowledge of pesticide risks on bee health, and attitudes toward risks of pesticides on bee health were significantly associated with bee mortality risk mitigation practice. Accordingly, beekeepers who received training were 3.85 times more likely to practice risk mitigation; those who had good knowledge about pesticide risks on bee health were 4.18 times more likely to practice reducing the risk of bee colony mortality; and those who had negative perceptions of the risk of pesticides on bee health were 2.4 times more likely to practice mitigation of the risks on bee mortality in the setting. Therefore, this study finding suggests that future interventions should focus on management practice improvements, particularly the reduction of pesticide misuse, exposure reduction, and behavioral interventions with beekeepers to improve the perceptions that end in the unlikely to mitigate the risks. The study’s cross-sectional nature hinders causal relationships between variables, and the self-reported data may introduce response bias, potentially leading to overstatement or understatement of behaviors. Future research could improve robustness and applicability by using longitudinal designs.
Conclusions
The study found that about half of beekeepers practice adopting risk mitigation measures, such as safe equipment handling and pesticide-free habitats; only a minority consistently use integrated pest management or hive types that minimize bee mortality. The level of risk mitigation practices was associated with access to beekeeping training, knowledge of pesticide risks, and attitudes toward pesticide risks, which significantly influence bee mortality risk mitigation practices. To reduce the risks of bee mortality from pesticide exposures, the key players in apiculture may benefit from behavioral interventions targeted to improve beekeepers’ knowledge and attitudes through the provision of capacity-building training to mitigate health risks of bee mortality.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-ehi-10.1177_11786302251328178 – Supplemental material for Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Beekeepers on Pesticide Risk Mitigation and Bee Mortality in Southwest Ethiopia
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ehi-10.1177_11786302251328178 for Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Beekeepers on Pesticide Risk Mitigation and Bee Mortality in Southwest Ethiopia by Mohammed Abajebel Taha, Seblework Mekonen and Gudina Terefe Tucho in Environmental Health Insights
Supplemental Material
sj-sav-2-ehi-10.1177_11786302251328178 – Supplemental material for Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Beekeepers on Pesticide Risk Mitigation and Bee Mortality in Southwest Ethiopia
Supplemental material, sj-sav-2-ehi-10.1177_11786302251328178 for Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Beekeepers on Pesticide Risk Mitigation and Bee Mortality in Southwest Ethiopia by Mohammed Abajebel Taha, Seblework Mekonen and Gudina Terefe Tucho in Environmental Health Insights
Footnotes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
