Knowledge,Attitudes,and Practices of Beekeepers on Pesticide Risk Mitigation and Bee Mortality in Southwest Ethiopia

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.

Keywords

honey bee (Apis mellifera)beekeeping (Apiculture)risk perception Ethiopia

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 beekeepers¹⁵ 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

Figure 1.

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 formula¹⁹ 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, $n = \frac{{(Z \frac{α}{2})}^{2} (P * (1 - P))}{d^{2}}$ = $\frac{{(1.96)}^{2} (0.50 * (1 - 0.50))}{{(0.05)}^{2}}$ = 384, considering a 10% non-response rate, the final sample size was 422 beekeepers were included.

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).

Table 1.

Socio-demographic characteristics of study participants in 3 selected zones in Southwest Ethiopia, 2023 (N = 420).

Variables	Categories	Frequency	Percent
Sex	Male	374	89.0
Sex	Female	46	11.0
Age category	18-24	6	1.4
	25-34	42	10.0
	35-44	149	35.5
	45-54	151	36.0
	55-64	65	15.5
	65 and above	7	1.7
Marital status	Single	33	7.9
	Married	377	89.8
	Widowed	10	2.4
Educational status	Elementary (1-8 grades)	142	33.8
	High school diploma (9-12 grades)	242	57.6
	College/university degree	36	8.6
Family size (number of people living with the respondent)	Less than 5	162	38.6
Family size (number of people living with the respondent)	5 or above	258	61.4
Main economic activities	Crop farming and beekeeping	190	45.2
	Beekeeping	227	54.0
	Agricultural Livestock and beekeeping	3	0.7
Received training on beekeeping	Yes	96	22.86
Received training on beekeeping	No	324	77.14
Experience in years of participating in beekeeping	Less than 5	23	5.5
Experience in years of participating in beekeeping	5 and above	397	94.5

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).

Table 2.

Beekeeping practices among beekeepers in 3 selected zones in southwest Ethiopia, 2023 (N = 420).

Variables	Categories	Frequency	Percent
Methods of beekeeping	Traditional	229	54.5
Methods of beekeeping	Modern	191	45.5
Size of apiary (beekeepers category)	Very small-scale (1-15 colonies)	295	70.2
	Small-scale (16-50 colonies)	55	13.1
	Medium-scale (51-150 colonies)	48	11.4
	Commercial-scale (151-500 colonies)	22	5.2
Move bees through the year	Yes	269	64.0
Move bees through the year	No	151	36.0
Frequency of inspecting each hive during active season	2-3 d	346	82.4
	Once per week	52	12.4
	Twice monthly	22	5.2
Treated their bees against varroa in the past 2 y	Yes	142	33.8
Treated their bees against varroa in the past 2 y	No	278	66.2
Experienced bee colony loss in the last 12 mo	Yes	319	75.9
Experienced bee colony loss in the last 12 mo	No	101	24.1

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).

Table 3.

knowledge of beekeepers on pesticide risks on bee health in the selected zones in south-west Ethiopia, 2023 (N = 420).

Knowledge related statements	Level of agreement	Frequency	Percentages	Mean (SD)
Bees are exposed to pesticides that can affect their health (risk)	Disagree	51	12.1	4.45 (0.699)
	Agree	232	55.2
	Strongly agree	137	32.6
Agrochemicals can kill bees (severity)	Disagree	144	34.3	3.95 (0.797)
	Agree	153	36.4
	Strongly agree	123	29.3
Bees selectively feed on pesticide-free plants (susceptibility).	Disagree	210	50.0	4.10 (0.70)
	Agree	83	19.8
	Strongly agree	127	30.2
Bees are directly affected by agricultural pesticides from the local environment (exposure)	Disagree	251	59.8	4.03 (0.635)
	Agree	79	18.8
	Strongly agree	90	21.4
Pesticides do not have any effect on bees (impact)	Disagree	177	42.1	4.25 (0.732)
	Nuetral	170	40.5
	Strongly agree	73	17.4
Overall knowledge	Poor	302	71.9	4.25 (0.43)
Overall knowledge	Good	118	28.1	4.25 (0.43)

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).

Table 4.

Attitudes of beekeepers on risks of pesticides on bee health in 3 selected zones in south-west Ethiopia, 2023 (N = 420).

Statements related to the attitudes of beekeepers	Level of agreement	Frequency	Percent	Mean (SD)
I feel my colonies are affected by an abnormally high exposure to agricultural-related pesticides.	Disagree	267	63.6	4.46 (0.803)
	Neutral	50	11.9
	Agree	92	21.9
	Strongly agree	11	2.6
I believe my colonies are affected by an abnormally high exposure to beekeeping-related pesticides	Neutral	34	8.1	4.36 (0.628)
	Agree	200	47.6
	Strongly agree	186	44.3
I believe pesticide contaminations both agricultural and beekeeping-related and their accumulation in bee’s wax are responsible for the high mortality of colonies	Disagree	45	10.7	3.87 (0.885)
	Neutral	61	14.5
	Agree	219	52.1
	Strongly agree	95	22.6
I feel pesticide use in agriculture and beekeeping leads to health risks to humans	Neutral	50	11.9	4.4 (0.693)
	Agree	150	35.7
	Strongly agree	220	52.4
I believe pesticide use in agriculture and beekeeping leads to environmental contamination	Disagree	221	52.6	3.82 (0.824)
	Neutral	88	21.0
	Agree	33	7.91
	Strongly agree	78	18.6
I believe pesticides used in agriculture and beekeeping have a higher impact on colonies than single pesticides on their own	Neutral	63	15	4.39 (0.734)
	Agree	132	31.4
	Strongly agree	225	53.6
The reductions in pesticide use by farmers increase the health of bees in apiculture.	Disagree	182	43.3	4.05 (0.803)
	Neutral	92	21.9
	Agree	11	2.6
	Strongly agree	135	32.1
Overall attitudes	Poor	264	62.9	4.19 (0.445)
Overall attitudes	Good	156	37.1	4.19 (0.445)

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).

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).

Statements related to risk mitigation on exposure to pesticides	Level of agreement	Frequency	Percent	Mean (SD)
I practice safe beekeeping practices to reduce colony weaken	Rarely	11	2.6	4.46 (0.806)
	Sometimes	51	12.1
	Often	91	21.7
	Always	267	63.6
I encourage farmers to adopt integrated pest management practices, such as reducing pesticide reliance and timing applications to avoid peak bee activity	Rarely	44	10.5	3.53 (0.917)
	Sometimes	189	45.0
	Often	107	25.5
	Always	80	19.0
I disinfect beekeeping equipment with safe chemicals that improve bee health	Sometimes	93	22.1	4.39 (0.789)
	Often	194	46.2
	Always	133	31.7
I use a hive type that reduces bee mortality	Sometimes	140	33.3	4.10 (0.728)
	Often	100	23.8
	Always	180	42.9
I provide pesticide-free wildflower habitats to enhance forage availability and mitigate pesticide exposure	Rarely	6	1.4	4.10 (0.859)
	Sometimes	163	38.8
	Often	172	41.0
	Always	79	18.8
I avoid using pesticides on my farm to secure bee health in beekeeping practice	Rarely	22	5.2	3.77 (0.763)
	Sometimes	144	34.2
	Often	163	38.8
	Always	91	21.7
Overall risk mitigation practice	Poor	192	45.7	4.06 (0.420)
Overall risk mitigation practice	Good	228	54.3	4.06 (0.420)

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).

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.

Variables	Categories	Risk mitigation practice		Crude odds ratio [COR]		Adjusted odds ratio [AOR]
Variables	Categories	Good	Poor	COR [95% CI]	P-value	AOR [95% CI]	P-value
Received training	Yes	74	22	3.73 [2.20-6.27]	<.001	3.85 [2.19-6.76]	<.001*
Received training	No	154	170	1	<.001	1	<.001*
Type of hive	Traditional	114	115	0.67 [0.45-0.98]	.043	0.73 [0.47-1.12]	.152
Type of hive	Modern	114	77	1	.043	1	.152
Experienced bee colony loss the last 12 mo	Yes	182	137	1.59 [1.01-2.49]	<.044	1.59 [0.96-2.65]	.071
Experienced bee colony loss the last 12 mo	No	46	55	1	<.044	1	.071
Knowledge	Good	94	24	4.91 [2.97-8.12]	<.001	4.18 [2.44-7.16]	<.001*
Knowledge	Poor	134	168	1	<.001	1	<.001*
Attitude	Positive	112	44	3.25 [2.12-4.97]	<.001	2.41 [1.51-3.84]	<.001*
Attitude	Negative	116	148	1	<.001	1	<.001*

*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 studies^27,32 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

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all study participants, data collectors, and survey supervisors, zonal administrators for their valuable support.

ORCID iDs

Mohammed Abajebel Taha

Gudina Terefe Tucho

Statements and Declarations

References

FAO. Good beekeeping practices for sustainable apiculture. 2021. doi:10.4060/cb5353en

Meixner

Le Conte

A current perspective on honey bee health. Apidologie. 2016;47(3):273-275.

El Agrebi

Steinhauer

Tosi

, et al. Risk and protective indicators of beekeeping management practices. Sci Total Environ. 2021;799:149381.

Hristov

Shumkova

Palova

Neov

Factors associated with honey bee colony losses: a mini-review. Vet Sci. 2020;7(4):166.

Brodschneider

Crailsheim

Nutrition and health in honey bees. Apidologie. 2010;41(3):278-294.

Diriba

Fisaha

Andualem

Causes of honeybee colony decline in South Ethiopia. Online J Anim Feed Res. 2023;13:259-268.

Abay

Bezabeh

Gela

Tassew

Evaluating the impact of commonly used pesticides on honeybees (Apis mellifera) in North Gonder of Amhara Region, Ethiopia. J Toxicol. 2023;2023:2634158.

Mekonnen

Gebremichael

Gela

Assessment of Honeybee colonies and production status linked with the application of agrochemicals in Ejere District, West Shoa, Oromia, Ethiopia. J Vet Med Res. 2018.

Bekele

Genet

Wondimu

Temaro

Assessment of pesticides use effects on honeybee colonies and its financial impact in some selected districts of Bale Zone, South Eastern Ethiopia. Int J Aquac Fish Sci. 2021;7:005-009.

10.

Gadissa

Damene

Teklu

. Environmental implications of pesticide use and application practice on beekeeping: Evidence from Gudeya Bila Woreda of East Wollega Zone in Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. 2022. Accessed January 28, 2025. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Environmental-implications-of-pesticide-use-and-on-Gadissa-Damene/636cd330cfd8f9518b9a94f6e482d475e4e6dec5

11.

Straw

Stanley

DA.

Weak evidence base for bee protective pesticide mitigation measures. J Econ Entomol. 2023;116(5):1604-1612.

12.

Teferi

Status of beekeeping in Ethiopia- a review. J Dairy Vet Sci. 2018;8(4):1-12.

13.

Gratzer

Wakjira

Fiedler

Brodschneider

. Challenges and perspectives for beekeeping in Ethiopia. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2021;41(4):1-15.

14.

Hussen Ahmed

Astatike

Fekadu

Mekonen

. Analyzing factors affecting farmers’ safe pesticide handling practices in southwest of Ethiopia: implications for policy. Environ Health Insights. 2024;18:11786302241256495.

15.

Abro

Kassie

Tiku

, et al. The impact of beekeeping on household income: evidence from north-western Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2022;8(5):e09492.

16.

Solomon

Degu

Fesseha

Mathewos

Study on major parasitic diseases of adult honeybees in three districts of Kaffa Zone, southern Ethiopia. Vet Med Int. 2021;2021:1-7.

17.

Gebewo

Bulcha

Tayir

MH.

Current status of beekeeping in Ethiopia and its future prospects. Int J Food Sci Agric. 2023;7(2):219-228. doi:10.26855/ijfsa.2023.06.007

18.

Shenkute

Getachew

Assefa

Nuru Adgaba

Honey production systems (Apis mellifera L.) in Kaffa, Sheka and Bench-Maji zones of Ethiopia. J Agric Ext Rural Dev. 2012;4(6):528-541.

19.

Lwanga

Lemeshow

Sample Size Determination in Health Studies : A Practical Manual. World Health Organization; 1991. Accessed November 5, 2023. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/40062

20.

IBM. IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) Statistics Software for Windows, Version 20.0. IBM Corp.

21.

Mohammed

Hassen

. The current constraints and opportunity of beekeeping in Ethiopia: a review. Accessed April 1, 2024. http://www.hillpublisher.com/UpFile/202112/20211217175404.pdf

22.

Chanthayod

Zhang

Chen

People’s perceptions of the benefits of natural beekeeping and its positive outcomes for forest conservation: a case study in Northern Lao PDR. Trop Conserv Sci. 2017;10:1940082917697260.

23.

Coh-Martínez

Cetzal-Ix

Martínez-Puc

, et al. Perceptions of the local beekeepers on the diversity and flowering phenology of the melliferous flora in the community of xmabén, Hopelchén, Campeche, Mexico. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2019;15(1):16.

24.

Thoms

Nelson

Kubas

, et al. Beekeeper stewardship, colony loss, and Varroa destructor management. Ambio. 2019;48(10):1209-1218.

25.

Casson

Cameron

Mauro

Friesen-Hughes

Rocque

Perceptions of the health impacts of climate change among Canadians. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):212.

26.

Teshome

Argaw

Wanore

WW.

Pesticide utilization, practices, and their effect on honeybees in North Gonder, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Adv Agric. 2023;2023:1-11.

27.

Dawud

Dugda

Giza

Assessment of pesticides use and its effects on honeybee colonies in West and East Hararghe Zones of Oromia region, Ethiopia. Regional Review Workshop on Completed Research Activities. 2022. Accessed January 28, 2025. https://www.iqqo.gov.et/sites/default/files/livestock%20research%20proceeding%202019%20vol.4.pdf#page=199

28.

Alemu

Shimeles

Mellese

TB.

Environmental implications of pesticide use and application practice on beekeeping: Evidence from Gudeya Bila woreda of East Wollega Zone in Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. Afr J Environ Sci Technol. 2022;16:275-285.

29.

Dassou

Anagonou

Vohouhe

, et al. Farmer knowledge and perceptions of agrochemicals use on honeybee community and honey production in Benin. Epub ahead of print 5 August 2020. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-49576/v1

30.

Munyuli

Farmers’ perceptions of pollinators’ importance in coffee production in Uganda. Agric Sci. 2011;02(03):318-333.

31.

Negatu

Dugassa

Mekonnen

Environmental and health risks of pesticide use in Ethiopia. J Health Pollut. 2021;11(30):210601.

32.

Piiru

Emikpe

Burimuah

, et al. Survey of beekeeping systems, management practices, pests, and indigenous pest control strategies in Ghana. PAMJ-One Health. 2025;16. doi:10.11604/pamj-oh.2025.16.2.45518

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.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

0.03 MB