IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v14y2024i6p890-d1408798.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“What’s Good for the Bees Will Be Good for Us!”—A Qualitative Study of the Factors Influencing Beekeeping Activity

Author

Listed:
  • Aliz Feketéné Ferenczi

    (Institute of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Debrecen, Böszörményi Str. 138, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary)

  • István Szűcs

    (Institute of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Debrecen, Böszörményi Str. 138, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary)

  • Andrea Bauerné Gáthy

    (Institute of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Debrecen, Böszörményi Str. 138, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary)

Abstract

Beekeepers play a crucial role in the survival of honey bee populations, so it is essential to understand the drivers behind their activities. This qualitative study aims to explore the factors influencing beekeepers’ decision-making and to assess the relationship between beekeepers and their bees, to identify the relationship between them by building a theoretical model, and to assess the perception of pollination services as a potential source of income diversification among Hungarian beekeepers. Based on the grounded theory method, we created a paradigm model of beekeeping management based on semi-structured interviews with beekeepers in Hungary. In the analysis of the interviews, we first used open coding to develop categories according to the concepts used by the beekeepers, and then structured and linked these categories (axial coding). Finally, we identified the most relevant main categories (selective coding) and outlined the conceptual framework for beekeeping management. We mapped the strategies and beekeeping practices beekeepers use and the consequences they generate. The results show that several causal conditions influence beekeeping decisions and strategies. In an environment where beekeepers’ costs are increasing and their incomes are decreasing while implementing adaptation strategies, more targeted measures are needed to protect bees and increase beekeepers’ profitability.

Suggested Citation

  • Aliz Feketéné Ferenczi & István Szűcs & Andrea Bauerné Gáthy, 2024. "“What’s Good for the Bees Will Be Good for Us!”—A Qualitative Study of the Factors Influencing Beekeeping Activity," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-20, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:6:p:890-:d:1408798
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/6/890/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/6/890/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luciano Pilati & Mario Prestamburgo, 2016. "Sequential Relationship between Profitability and Sustainability: The Case of Migratory Beekeeping," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, January.
    2. Mwebaze, Paul & Marris, Gay C. & Brown, Mike & MacLeod, Alan & Jones, Glyn & Budge, Giles E., 2018. "Measuring public perception and preferences for ecosystem services: A case study of bee pollination in the UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 355-362.
    3. Ann Finan, 2011. "For the love of goats: the advantages of alterity," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(1), pages 81-96, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manhique, Henrique & Wätzold, Frank, 2023. "Effects of Institutional Setting on Value Estimates of Stated Preference Surveys in Developing Economies: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Conserving Biodiversity in The Cape Floristic Region," MPRA Paper 118750, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Jerrod Penn & Wuyang Hu & Hannah J. Penn, 2019. "Support for Solitary Bee Conservation among the Public versus Beekeepers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 101(5), pages 1386-1400, October.
    3. Lucie Newsome, 2021. "Disrupted gender roles in Australian agriculture: first generation female farmers’ construction of farming identity," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(3), pages 803-814, September.
    4. Jennifer A. Ball, 2020. "Women farmers in developed countries: a literature review," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(1), pages 147-160, March.
    5. Jing Ning & Jianjun Jin & Foyuan Kuang & Xinyu Wan & Chenyang Zhang & Tong Guan, 2019. "The Valuation of Grassland Ecosystem Services in Inner Mongolia of China and Its Spatial Differences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-14, December.
    6. Moritz A. Drupp & Zachary M. Turk & Ben Groom & Jonas Heckenhahn, 2023. "Limited substitutability, relative price changes and the uplifting of public natural capital values," Papers 2308.04400, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    7. Daniels Kotovs & Aleksejs Zacepins, 2023. "GIS-Based Interactive Map to Improve Scheduling Beekeeping Activities," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-12, March.
    8. Monica Fisher & Paul A. Lewin & Ryanne Pilgeram, 2023. "Gender differences in the financial performance of U.S. farm businesses: A decomposition analysis using the Census of Agriculture," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 1233-1253, June.
    9. Céline Moreaux & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Bo Dalsgaard & Carsten Rahbek & Niels Strange, 2023. "Distance and Regional Effects on the Value of Wild Bee Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 37-63, January.
    10. Aliz Feketéné Ferenczi & Isván Szűcs & Andrea Bauerné Gáthy, 2023. "Evaluation of the Pollination Ecosystem Service of the Honey Bee ( Apis mellifera ) Based on a Beekeeping Model in Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-14, June.
    11. Stevens Azima & Patrick Mundler, 2022. "Does direct farm marketing fulfill its promises? analyzing job satisfaction among direct-market farmers in Canada," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 791-807, June.
    12. Izabela Kot & Magdalena Lisecka & Katarzyna Kmieć & Katarzyna Golan & Edyta Górska-Drabik & Tomasz Kiljanek & Beata Zimowska & Barbara Skwaryło-Bednarz, 2023. "Visitation of Apis mellifera L. in Runner Bean ( Phaseolus coccineus L.) and Its Exposure to Seasonal Agrochemicals in Agroecosystems," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, November.
    13. Wang, Xiaoqi & Zhao, Xueyan, 2023. "Farmers' perception and choice preference of grassland ecosystem services: Evidence from the northeastern region of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    14. Teresina Mancuso & Luca Croce & Monica Vercelli, 2020. "Total Brood Removal and Other Biotechniques for the Sustainable Control of Varroa Mites in Honey Bee Colonies: Economic Impact in Beekeeping Farm Case Studies in Northwestern Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-16, March.
    15. Jennifer Ball, 2014. "She works hard for the money: women in Kansas agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(4), pages 593-605, December.
    16. Weiwei Wang & Jianhong E. Mu & Jadwiga R. Ziolkowska, 2021. "Perceived Economic Value of Ecosystem Services in the US Rio Grande Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-16, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:6:p:890-:d:1408798. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.