Abstract
The beekeeping sector plays an important role in maintaining biodiversity and the ecosystem, in addition to its production function. The European beekeeping sector is facing a number of constraints that make it difficult to operate, and the Covid-19 pandemic has posed new challenges for beekeepers. The purpose of the study is to examine the resilience of beekeeping businesses to the most important problems affecting beekeepers and the Covid-19 pandemic. The research analyses the role of marketing and profitability and how they influence the resilience. Variables obtained from online questioning of a representative sample of Hungarian beekeepers (N = 297). Cluster analysis was used to validate the results. Using a Two-step clustering model, three clusters of beekeepers were identified: a non-resilient; a resilient, but not proactive and not very profitable and a resilient, proactive and profitable cluster. According to the research, the resilience of beekeepers is shaped by several factors. Well-trained, long-established beekeepers who seek to differentiate their products from their competitors’ overcome the difficulties caused by the pandemic and other beekeeping problems much more easily. Very important factors resulting in remarkable business resilience are the number of used subsidies and the number of cooperations.
1. Introduction
The worldwide importance of the beekeeping sector goes far beyond its production function and its contribution to the gross production value of the economy (Utaipanon et al., 2019). Beekeeping plays an important role in preserving biodiversity, maintaining ecological balance and the ecosystem through the pollination of plants (Malkamäki et al., 2016). The popularity of beekeeping among entrepreneurial farmers is unbroken, the number of bee colonies in the European Union has grown dynamically over the last 20 years, but due to the serious bee health situation that has developed in recent years, the spread of bee diseases and bee deaths, the beekeeping sector is facing a crisis across Europe (European Parliament, 2018).
Despite the generally unfavorable weather conditions and the deteriorating bee health situation, Hungarian honey production achieved outstandingly good results. The Hungarian beekeeping sector is currently heavily exposed to foreign markets, as a significant part of the honey produced is exported (around 70–80%), and the proportion of imported honey is insignificant (4.4% on average). The country’s honey production has almost doubled by 2020 since the turn of the millennium, with an average annual honey yield of around 20 000 tonnes in the period under review. According to Illés et al. (2021), Hungary has a comparative advantage in terms of honey for a long time, the Hungarian bee products are competitive on the EU markets. The high yields achieved (21 kg/hive) can be explained by the high proportion of professional (with at least 150 hives) and migratory beekeepers and the ideal climatic conditions for honey production (Hungarian Beekeepers Association, 2018). The bee density in Hungary has been extremely high since 2012 (13.6 colonies/km2) (Oravecz et al., 2020a). The country is characterized by an ageing beekeeper population, a general decline in the agricultural population and a high labour shortage in some regions, especially in small villages (Mucha et al., 2021). To survive the most important problems affecting beekeepers and the COVID-19 pandemic, beekeepers must have a resilient operation. The resilience of beekeeping is a less researched area, our research aims to fill this gap. The objectives of this research are as follows.
First, to get the views of beekeepers on the most important problems affecting beekeepers. Second, to understand the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic to the beekeepers. Third, to segment the beekeepers to their responses for the most important problems affecting beekeepers. Forth, to identify the factors improving the resilience of the beekeepers to the most important problems affecting beekeepers and the Covid-19 pandemic.
We compose the research questions based on the research objectives as follows:
Q1. What are the most important problems in beekeeping?
Q2. What impact has the Covid-19 pandemic had on beekeeping?
Q3. Can beekeepers be segmented according to their responses to the problems affecting them?
Q4. What factors determine the resilience of the beekeepers to the Covid-19 pandemic and the other most important problems affecting beekeepers?
Following this introduction, authors provide a literature review and hypotheses development for the research questions, Section 3 describes the methodology, while Section 4 presents the results. Section 5 presents the discussion, and Section 6 is the final section which provides the conclusions, suggestions and limitations of the research.
2. Literature review and hypotheses development
2.1 Beekeeping problems
Currently the biggest risks in apiculture are the severe bee health situation, high bee density, bee diseases and mass bee deaths (Andrews, 2019; Bislimi, 2020; Cornelissen et al., 2019; Hrynko et al., 2021; Jacques et al., 2017). The sector is particularly vulnerable to the vagaries of damage events, the weather and climate change (Gérard et al., 2020; Giannini et al., 2020; Steinhauer and Saegerman, 2021), the poor quality imported honey and honey counterfeiting (Bong et al., 2021; Denžić Lugomer et al., 2017; Vercelli et al., 2021). Inadequate skills and beekeeping practices of beekeepers are a serious problem throughout Europe (Jacques et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the lack of cooperation with other beekeepers (Andaregie and Astatkie, 2021), the use of pesticides in agriculture and the improper spraying (Wakgari and Yigezu, 2021) are some of the constraints of beekeeping. The general problem of beekeepers is the persistently low purchase price (Çevrimli and Sakarya, 2019). Competition is intensifying, both domestically and internationally, with the low purchase price of honey and cheap Chinese honey worsening the market position of domestic beekeepers. The high price difference in the international honey market has been unfavourable for domestic beekeeping enterprises for years now (Popp et al., 2018). The main problems are insufficient capital supply, low agricultural support and a relatively small income-generating potential (Bajdor et al., 2020). Based on the Q1 research question and the chapter above, we formulated our first hypothesis.
H1: The beekeeping sector have to deal with several serious problems, but the major constraints in apiculture are bee diseases and low purchase prices.
2.2 The Covid-19 pandemic
According to Laborde et al. (2020), the pandemic affects all four pillars of food security (availability; access; utilization; stability). Éliás and Jámbor (2021) gathered and synthesized the food-security-related empirical results in a systematic review, which also featured the potential threats to production and availability from the first year of the pandemic. Workie et al. (2020) and Laborde et al. (2020) drew attention to the effect, which is more severe on countries, where farming is more labour-intensive, the labour shortage could cause obstructions in production. Hobbs (2020) points out that the long-term impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on food supply chains must be thoroughly examined. In addition to panic shopping and the potential supply disruptions, they see a need to examine the rise of online commerce (Hossain et al., 2022) and the consumption of local food. In the case of food consumption, it may take several years for production to fully adapt to change, as it is quite inelastic (Elleby et al., 2020). The pandemic distorts supply and demand internationally, makes food production and distribution more difficult, and indirectly reduces the purchasing power of the population. According to Welsh (2020) the pandemic thus directly affects food systems. Kraus et al. (2020) think the new situation poses serious challenges to businesses. The beekeepers were affected in different ways by the Covid-19 pandemic. According to Attia et al. (2022), the general lockdown had a positive impact on honeybees’ life’s quality. On the other hand, it had negative impact on pollinator activity, because of the bee and beehive transportation limitations. Pocol et al. (2021) point out the increase demand in 2020 for health-related products such as honey, but call attention the negative impact of the pandemic, like the limited access to the beekeeping firms, because of travel restrictions. The beekeeping activities and the consumption habits of hive products during the pandemic in Turkey were not affected (Özbakır et al., 2021). Based on the Q2 research question and the chapter above, we formulated our second hypothesis.
H2: The Covid-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on the beekeeping sector.
2.3 Resilience
According to Folke et al. (2004) and Adger (2006), resilience is the ability of a given economic operator or ecosystem to counteract external shocks, reorganize and renew in a way that preserves its activity or character. Gorgievski and Stephan (2016) emphasize that resilient firms are able to act in times of difficulty and have a greater willingness to act compared to entrepreneurs who are deterred by shocks. Resilient actors simply face environmental threats better and respond to problems with sufficient agility and flexibility (Thrassou et al., 2018; Vrontis et al., 2012). In the areas where resilience is addressed, a number of definitions has been developed (Barasa et al., 2018; Béné and Doyen, 2018). In Béné (2020) summary, resilience is the ability of actors (businesses, households, communities) to manage adverse events, shocks and adverse conditions in a way that does not impair their long-term well-being and / or functioning. Park et al. (2013) drew attention to resilience cannot be measured at the systems scale solely from examination of component parts. According to Hollnagel (2017), resilience cannot be measured by counting specific outcomes. In the literature there are some empirical attempts at ‘quantifying’ resilience (or more correctly some part of it), but quantifiable measuring resilience is very difficult and complex, however the different components of resilience can be compared (Béné, 2013). According to Hadi (2020), the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic shifted the strategic direction of many businesses from the search for profit to the search for resilience. Profitability is an important indicator of resilience, alongside production costs and competitiveness (Paas et al., 2021). We defined the resilience of the beekeepers as their ability to counteract the external problems, which is mainly reflected in profitability.
2.4 Resilience capacities of beekeeping
The importance of education and orientation in beekeeping is emphasized by Abrol (2013). Knowledge of bee behaviour, expertise (Vercelli et al., 2021), and experience (Schouten, 2020) are all essential for beekeepers. Dall’Olio et al. (2020) consider research on bees and beekeeping to be important even during a pandemic. The basis of good beekeeping management practices (BMP) is the proper keeping of bees, which is one of the cornerstones of quality honey production (El Agrebi et al., 2021). According to Lyubenov (2019) marketing has a key role in beekeeping because it defines the hive products (production, design), also the markets for which they will achieve competitiveness. Vercelli et al. (2021) highlight the lack of effective marketing strategies and sales capabilities in the sector. In addition to rudimentary marketing strategies (Vercelli et al., 2021), the problems of the honey market can also be traced back to a lack of consumer knowledge (Adgaba et al., 2014; Ismaiel et al., 2014). According to Joshi (2008), the marketing strategy of a given producer (packaging, labelling, appearance, communication) is largely determined by the size of the apiary. The origin, the brand, the producer and the certification mark are also important features (Di Vita et al., 2021; Oravecz et al., 2020b; Ratten et al., 2017). In case of family firms, invisible assets such as willingness to cooperate, relational capital, trust and knowledge play a significant role in competitiveness (Chandler et al., 2019; Hurta and Dunay, 2013). Malkamäki et al. (2016) emphasize that the resilience of beekeeping can be learned by rearranging the benefit-sharing mechanisms of the attitude and structure of social networks, or by prioritizing and changing the needs of society. According to Béné (2020) and Hadi (2020), resilience can come from a set of capacities or abilities. These “input” abilities basically depend on the combination of assets and capital (social, human, financial) (Brewton et al., 2010).
Based on the research framework, the resilience of beekeepers is influenced by:
-
the human capital: education, knowledge, training (Jacques et al., 2017; Kuboja et al., 2017);
-
the marketing tools, channels and certification marks used (Çevrimli and Sakarya, 2019; Wakgari and Yigezu, 2021);
-
financial capital: profitability, financial assets, subsidies, equipment (Aksoy et al., 2018; Duah et al., 2017; Kaboré et al., 2022; Schouten, 2020; Vercelli et al., 2021);
-
the social capital: cooperation with the actors in the industry and the supply chain (Andaregie and Astatkie, 2021; Çevrimli and Sakarya, 2019).
Based on research question Q3 and the sections above, the hypotheses were formulated as follows:
H3: Well-defined producer groups can be formed in terms of the beekeepers’ resilience to the most important problems affecting beekeepers and the Covid-19 pandemic.
Based on research question Q4 and the literature review, the following sub-hypotheses were formulated:
H3/a: The higher the development of the human capital is, the greater the resilience we see.
H3/b: Apiaries with a more advanced marketing strategy have greater resilience.
H3/c: The number of used subsidies increases the resistance to the effects of the pandemic and other problems in apiaries.
H3/d: The number of cooperation with the actors in the industry and the supply chain increases the resistance to the effects of the pandemic and other problems in apiaries.
3. Material and methods
3.1 Procedure and sample
A total of 297 Hungarian beekeepers were interviewed using the online questionnaire method, with the help of the National Hungarian Beekeeping Association, by sharing the questionnaire among the Association’s members, the results of which are included in this study. The questionnaire was conducted between August and November 2020. Respondents’ participation was entirely consensual and anonymous, and they were informed that they could withdraw from this study by not completing the questionnaire. This study was reviewed and approved by an institutional review board (ethics committee) of the Doctoral School of Szent István University before the study commenced. Industry actors had the opportunity to respond both in closed and explanatory ways. The different sections of the questionnaire covered the issues affecting the sector, the effects of the pandemic, the training of beekeepers, the size of the business, the nature of the activity, the marketing tools and channels used, profitability and cooperation. According to the database of the Hungarian Beekeepers Association (2021), the sample is representative of the apiaries location by county (
3.2 Methodology
The correlations were examined using cross-tabulations. The level of statistical significance of the correlations of the variables was determined by Pearson’s
4. Results
The results are presented in the order of the research questions and hypotheses.
4.1 Beekeeping problems, Covid-19 pandemic and profitability
Based on the beekeepers’ responses (Table 1), H1 is partially accepted. Indeed, the respondents consider that the biggest problem affecting their apiaries is the poor quality imported honey. The threat of bee diseases was mentioned as only the fifth biggest problem. To answer Q2, beekeepers had the opportunity to talk about the impact of the pandemic on their business and the sector in the questionnaire. The textual responses were evaluated by summarizing the most common and most similar responses, and the textual responses were coded for subsequent quantitative studies. Based on the responses, beekeepers can be divided into 3 categories: who experienced negative (code: 1), neutral (code: 2) and positive (code: 3) impact of the pandemic on their business (Table 1). Profitability (as an important indicator of resilience) between 2015 and 2020 was also questioned. According to their responses (Appendix A) 31% of the 297 beekeepers made a profit each year in the five years preceding the survey.
Beekeepers’ problems and the mean and standard deviation of answers to questions.
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 2 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0143
4.2 Beekeepers segments
The principal component analysis for the 9 questions about the beekeepers’ problems (Table 1) in the questionnaire allowed the creation of 3 well-separable principal components (Table 2). The Cronbach’s alpha indicator for “Natural Problems” and “Damage events and the lack of cooperation” did not reach 0.6, the KMO did not reach 0.7, and the explained variance did not reach 60%, but according to Taber (2018), the factor analysis can still be considered appropriate.
Factors created in beekeepers’ problems and the average of answers to questions.
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 2 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0143
To analyse the resilience of beekeepers, we created homogeneous producer groups using the factors shaped by the most important problems affecting the sector (continuous variables) and the coded responses to the pandemic (categorical variable). These variables are based on beekeepers’ experiences, the profitability as an exact measure have also been included in the clustering. The three-cluster solution created with the Two-step clustering procedure best suited the data. The cluster quality, based on Silhouette measure of cohesion and separation, was fair; the ratio of sizes was 1.37. The homogeneous groups, the cluster centres (ordered in their importance), the number of elements of the clusters, and their characteristics are revealed in Table 3.
Homogeneous beekeeper groups and their cluster centres based on factors created in the view of the problems of beekeepers, the responses of beekeepers about the pandemic to the open-ended question, and their profitability.
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 2 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0143
Only 29% of the respondents considered the impact of Covid positively for their apiaries (Table 3), supporting hypothesis H2 that the pandemic has had a primarily negative impact on the beekeeping sector. By using the Two-step cluster analysis, hypothesis H3 was supported; well-defined producer groups can be formed in terms of the beekeepers’ resilience to the most important problems affecting beekeepers and the Covid-19 pandemic. Cluster 1 (non-resilient) beekeepers reported a negative impact of the pandemic (Table 3). They consider the low purchasing and selling prices and the poor quality imported honey bigger problems than the average of the respondents. On average, non-resilient beekeepers have been profitable for 3 of the examined 5 years. They consider the unexpected damage events and the lack of cooperation as serious problems for their operations. Non-resilient beekeepers also consider the bee diseases, the improper spraying, the high bee density and the weather, climate change bigger problems than the average of the respondents. Cluster 2 (moderately resilient) beekeepers are typically among those who evaluate the effects of Covid-19 pandemic neutrally, they are not proactive. Members of this cluster do not consider the problems of the low purchasing and selling prices and the presence of the poor quality imported honey as a concern. They have been more profitable than beekeepers in the non-resilient cluster between 2015 and 2020. These beekeepers also consider the unexpected damage events, the lack of cooperation and the natural problems a less threat for their operations than the average of the respondents. Cluster 3 (resilient and profitable cluster) beekeepers reported a positive impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The change caused by the pandemic has created new sales opportunities for them, they are proactive producers. This group considers the increase of foreign, uncontrolled honey and low purchase prices to be a larger-than-average problem. These beekeepers are particularly successful in terms of profitability, with 38.4% of them was profitable in all five years between 2015 and 2020. These producers – similar to the members of the previous cluster – also consider the unexpected damage events, the lack of cooperation and the natural problems a less threat for their operations than the average of the respondents. The analysis of the differences between beekeepers’ segments focuses on the factors described in Section 2.3, by highlighting only the significant results. First, the human capital was analysed. The composition of the clusters was similar to that of the overall sample (Appendix A). The respondents were mainly men aged 30–50 years old with a university degree. The first important difference between the segments was in terms of the qualification of agricultural. The share of agrarian education is high in the total sample (43.7%), but in the cluster of successful beekeepers it is significantly higher (53.5%). Visiting beekeeping lectures and reading beekeeping newspapers, articles, news and studies are popular among the responding beekeepers. More than half of the respondents buy beekeeping textbooks (57.2%), but the proportion was significantly higher in the case of the “resilient and profitable” group (69.8%). The long-established beekeeping is also crucial for successful, resilient operation. Beekeepers of the “Non-resilient” and the “Resilient” clusters have typically been beekeeping for 5–10 years, while beekeepers in the truly successful, profitable and resilient cluster have been beekeeping for 11–20 years. According to the literature review and Hypothesis H3/a, education influences resilience, which has been accepted. The next important area is the role of marketing in beekeeping (Section 2.3). The questionnaire contained 13 questions about the marketing tools used by the respondents; the marketing solutions used by the interviewed beekeepers are listed in Table 4.
Marketing solutions used by respondents.
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 2 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0143
A high proportion of beekeepers use the honey jar from the Beekeepers Association (59.3%), the custom packaging (36.4%) and unique labels and logos (39.4%), and 20.9% of them have their own website or Facebook page. There is a difference in the marketing tools used in terms of the use of unique label and logo. A significantly higher proportion (51.2%) of successful, profitable and resilient beekeepers distinguishes their products in this way. 23.9% of the beekeepers in the survey do not use any of the marketing tools asked in the questionnaire. This rate is significantly higher for the Non-resilient group (32.3%) and significantly lower for the “Resilient and profitable” cluster (9.3%). The successful beekeepers use more marketing tools than beekeepers in the other two clusters. The questionnaire included 7 questions about the marketing channel used by the respondents (Table 4). As in the case of marketing tools, not the quantity in this case either, but the specific activity proved to be authoritative. Sales through friends and acquaintances also proved to be a suitable marketing channel during the pandemic. Selling the honey this way is a popular marketing channel in Hungary (49.5%), the 59.3% of beekeepers of the “Resilient and profitable” use this selling channel. These results support hypothesis H3/b, apiaries with a more advanced marketing strategy have greater resilience. The next important area is the role of the subsidies in beekeeping (Section 2.3). The questionnaire covered all the subsidies available to beekeepers in Hungary (Appendix A). Beekeepers have mainly used subsidy for medicine between 2015 and 2020. De MINIMIS is also a popular form of support, as are subsidies for the buying of queen bees and new equipment. The successful beekeepers used more subsidies than the other two groups, with 32.6% of them using 4–5 subsidies between 2015 and 2020. The results support hypothesis H3/c, the number of used subsidies increases the resistance to the effects of the pandemic and other problems in apiaries. According to the literature (Section 2.3), cooperation with other organizations is also important for the resilience of beekeeping. Examining the profitable and resilient producers in terms of cooperation with the actors in the value chain, significant correlations can also be shown. These beekeepers have been cooperated with their customers in a significantly higher proportion (34.9%) between 2015 and 2020, then the members of the other two groups. Significantly higher rates are observed for cooperation with restaurants and confectioneries. A small proportion of beekeepers (6.1%) use this form of cooperation, but almost twice as many (11.6%) of profitable and resilient beekeepers do so. Hypothesis H3/d is also accepted, because the number of cooperation with the actors in the industry and the supply chain increases the resistance to the effects of the pandemic and other problems in apiaries.
5. Discussion
The study examines the most common problems affecting beekeepers. The beekeepers involved in the study described the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on their apiaries as an answer to an open-ended question. Based on their responses to the severity of the problems and their profitability between 2015 and 2020, three well-distinguishable homogeneous groups could be formed. Who perceived the negative effects of the pandemic and considered the problems bigger than the average of the respondents, are non-resilient beekeepers. Their beekeeping is not particularly profitable. The second group is resilient but not very proactive and only moderately profitable, while the third group is clearly a cluster of successful beekeepers. The group of profitable and resilient beekeepers finds beekeeping problems less of a concern than average, they positively perceived the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on their apiaries. They have the ability to counteract the external problems, and they are proactive and profitable. For these beekeepers the further development of their beekeeping knowledge is important, they have qualification of agricultural studies, and they buy beekeeping textbooks to improve their professional skills. The long-established beekeeping is also crucial for successful, resilient operation, profitable and resilient beekeepers have been beekeeping for 11–20 years. This result confirms the finding of Béné (2020) and Hadi (2020) that resilience stems from a set of capacities or abilities. The development and training of the human capital mean greater resilience in beekeeping (in contrast to the results of Brewton et al. (2010) about family firm resilience). Knowledge capital and good beekeeping management practices are also important for apiaries, results are consistent with previous researches (Abrol, 2013; El Agrebi et al., 2021; Jacques et al., 2017). Successful and resilient beekeepers are more likely to differentiate their products with a custom label and logo, to use their own brand. Building an own brand, markedly differentiating the products and themselves as manufacturers from competitors has been a successful marketing strategy in the pandemic. The study confirms the findings of the previous studies (Adgaba et al., 2014; Ismaiel et al., 2014; Vercelli et al., 2021) that one of the causes of the sector’s weakness is a lack of effective marketing strategies and sales skills. Cheap imported honey poses a threat to beekeepers (Vercelli et al., 2021), so there is a need for marketing communication from beekeepers emphasizing the importance of domestic honey. There is a consumer demand for the consumption of local, domestic honey (Di Vita et al., 2021; Oravecz et al., 2020b; Rajan et al., 2002). Beekeepers who differentiate their products more than competitors are more profitable. Producers used more marketing tools and channels also belong to the group of those who are more likely to survive the pandemic and other problems, which confirms Béné (2020) finding of diversification as a possible coping strategy. The amount of subsidies used by producers is also decisive in resilience, and the weakness of the sector is the lack of financial resources (Vercelli et al., 2021), and beekeepers with subsidy opportunities gain a competitive advantage. Cooperation with costumers as well as with other beekeepers is also crucial for resilient and profitable operation. According to the research, the resilience of beekeepers from the point of view of Covid-19 and other problems depends on the appropriate expertise (similar results in terms of honey yield (Duah et al., 2017; Schouten, 2020)); the time spent in the apiary (a similar result for honey yield was obtained by Aksoy et al. (2018) and Schouten (2020)), the appropriate sales solutions; the numbers of used subsidies; the number of cooperation and the stable, profitable operation over the years.
6. Conclusions and implications
In addition to the Covid-19 pandemic, Hungarian beekeepers also have to deal with other serious problems, like weather and climate change; honey counterfeiting; bee diseases; high bee density; low purchase and sale prices; improper spraying; damage event; lack of cooperation with other beekeepers and the poor quality imported honey. Adapting BMP to these changes mean greater resilience in beekeeping. Beekeepers who are open to improve their professional knowledge and management practices – focusing on marketing – could gain competitive advantages. National monitoring projects with comparable and representative information could help avoid inappropriate BMP, such as Hungarian Beekeepers Association’s Bee Health and Environmental Monitoring Study. Hungarian beekeepers are farmers who feel worried about the problems of beekeeping, but the majority of them have resilient operation. To answer Q1, we identified the most important problems in beekeeping. Beekeepers considered the poor quality imported honey as the biggest problem in their business between 2015 and 2020. This was followed by the low purchase and sale prices; the weather and climate change; the improper spraying; the bee diseases; the lack of cooperation with other agricultural actors (e.g. farmers); the lack of cooperation with other beekeepers; the high bee density and the damage events (e.g. natural disaster, hive theft, water damage, fire damage, etc.). To answer Q2, we established that the Covid-19 pandemic has had a primarily negative impact on the beekeeping sector. To answer Q3, three well-distinguishable homogeneous groups were formed by cluster analysis. The detailed analysis of the clusters has made it possible to identify the characteristics of resilient and profitable beekeepers (Q4). Well-trained, long-established beekeepers who seek to differentiate their products from their competitors’ overcome the difficulties caused by the pandemic and other beekeeping problems much more easily. Very important factors resulting in remarkable business resilience are the number of used subsidies and the number of cooperations.
We, in the light of the results, formulate the following specific proposals. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the problems affecting the sector, the resilience of beekeepers can be increased by the widest possible access to financial resources and support, the development of beekeeping education, the strengthening of (even community-level) marketing strategies, individual branding, packaging and differentiation from imported honey.
Although the study may help to understand the factors that play a role in the resilience of beekeepers, it has a number of limitations, which should be addressed by future research. The sample was only representative by county. The study is based on results from Hungary, and the study does not reveal deeper causal relationships. The study does not analyze the causal relationship of dependent and independent variables by econometric model. Furthermore, the study does not take the socio-cultural aspects into account that may constrain beekeepers in the process of growing the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The cooperation of family members; the generational problems; the level of support of experienced beekeepers to the upcoming beekeeper; the level of coercion of the immediate environment of beekeepers to leave the business; the fear of bee stings have not been considered. Nevertheless, due to the new approach to research and the results confirming the previous literature, the conclusions, theoretical and empirical results may also be relevant in an international context. However, the research content of the study can be further expanded in the future with studies that place a strong emphasis on identifying bottom-up instances in order to propose appropriate policies. To understand the barriers and drivers to the adoption of more flexible forms of behaviour in the sector, qualitative studies that can explore these aspects would be useful.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the ÚNKP-19-3-III-SZIE-6 and ÚNKP-20-3-I-SZIE-3 New National Excellence Program of the Ministry for Innovation and Technology from the source of the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund.
References
Abrol, D. 2013. Beekeeping: a compressive guide to bees and beekeeping: Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur.
Adgaba, N., A. Al-khazim, A. Zulail, S.M. Ismaiel and S. Al-kahtani. 2014. Qualitative factors affecting the price and demand of honey in Saudi Arabia. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Science 8 (10): 199–206.
Adger, W.N. 2006. Vulnerability. Global environmental change 16 (3): 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
Aksoy, A., N. Demir and A. Bilgiç. 2018. A study on identifying the effectiveness of the beekeeping grants provided by IPARD program: examples of Erzurum, Kars and Agri provinces. Costs and Agriculture Online 14 (3): 269–283.
Andaregie, A. and T. Astatkie. 2021. Determinants of beekeeping adoption by smallholder rural households in Northwest Ethiopia. Cogent Food & Agriculture 7 (1): 1954817. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2021.1954817
Andrews, E. 2019. To save the bees or not to save the bees: honey bee health in the Anthropocene. Agriculture and Human Values 36 (4): 891–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09946-x
Attia, Y.A., G.M. Giorgio, N.F. Addeo, K.A. Asiry, G. Piccolo, A. Nizza, C. Di Meo, N.A. Alanazi, A.D. Al-Qurashi and M.E.A. El-Hack. 2022. COVID-19 pandemic: impacts on bees, beekeeping and potential role of bee products as antiviral agents and immune enhancers. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29: 9592–9605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17643-8
Bajdor, P., A. Brzozowska, A. Kalinichenko and A. Dunay. 2020. Sustainable Agriculture Management in European Union Countries. In Proceedings of the 35th International Business Information Management Association Conference: Education Excellence and Innovation Management: A 2025 Vision to Sustain Economic Development during Global Challenges, Seville, Spain, pp. 808–819.
Barasa, E., R. Mbau and L. Gilson. 2018. What is resilience and how can it be nurtured? A systematic review of empirical literature on organizational resilience. International Journal of Health Policy and Management 7 (6): 491. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2018.06
Béné, C. 2013. Towards a quantifiable measure of resilience. IDS Working Papers 2013 (434): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2013.00434.x
Béné, C. 2020. Resilience of local food systems and links to food security–A review of some important concepts in the context of COVID-19 and other shocks. Food Security 12 (4): 805–822. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-01076-1
Béné, C. and L. Doyen. 2018. From resistance to transformation: a generic metric of resilience through viability. Earth’s Future 6 (7): 979–996. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000660
Bislimi, K. 2020. Determinants of family entrepreneurship in the beekeeping sector. Journal of Family Business Management 12 (1): 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-07-2020-0070
Bong, J., M. Middleditch, K.M. Loomes and J.M. Stephens. 2021. Proteomic analysis of honey. Identification of unique peptide markers for authentication of NZ mānuka (Leptospermum scoparium) honey. Food Chemistry 350: 128442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.128442
Brewton, K.E., S.M. Danes, K. Stafford and G.W. Haynes. 2010. Determinants of rural and urban family firm resilience. Journal of Family Business Strategy 1 (3): 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2010.08.003
Çevrimli, M.B. and E. Sakarya. 2019. Economic analysis of beekeeping enterprises in Aegean Region, Turkey. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi 66 (2): 109–115. https://doi.org/10.33988/auvfd.547464
Chandler, N., Á. Mosolygó-Kiss and B. Heidrich. 2019. Ensuring sustainable growth: the transference of responsible leadership characteristics during family business succession. In Proceedings of the 17th Interdisciplinary European Conference on Entrepreneurship Research: Entrepreneurship for a Better Future, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 1–9.
Cornelissen, B., P. Neumann and O. Schweiger. 2019. Global warming promotes biological invasion of a honey bee pest. Global Change Biology 25 (11): 3642–3655.
Cronbach, L.J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16 (3): 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Dall’Olio, R., T. Blacquiere, M. Bouga, R. Brodschneider, N.L. Carreck, P. Chantawannakul, V. Dietemann, L.F. Kristiansen, A. Gajda and A. Gregorc. 2020. COLOSS survey: global impact of COVID-19 on bee research. Journal of Apicultural Research 59 (5): 731–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2020.1799646
Denžić Lugomer, M., D. Pavliček, M. Kiš, A. Končurat and D. Majnarić. 2017. Quality assessment of different types of Croatian honey between 2012 and 2016. Veterinarska Stanica 48 (2): 93–99.
Di Vita, G., L. Pippinato, S. Blanc, R. Zanchini, A. Mosso and F. Brun. 2021. Understanding the Role of Purchasing Predictors in the Consumer’s Preferences for PDO Labelled Honey. Journal of Food Products Marketing 27 (1): 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2021.1884161
Duah, H.K., A.Y. Segbefia, M.K. Adjaloo and D. Forkuor. 2017. Income sustainability and poverty reduction among beekeeping value chain actors in the Berekum Municipality, Ghana. International Journal of Development and Sustainability 6 (8): 667–684.
El Agrebi, N., N. Steinhauer, S. Tosi, L. Leinartz, D.C. de Graaf and C. Saegerman. 2021. Risk and protective indicators of beekeeping management practices. Science of the Total Environment 799: 149381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149381
Éliás, B.A. and A. Jámbor. 2021. Food security and COVID-19: a systematic review of the first-year experience. Sustainability 13 (9): 5294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095294
Elleby, C., I.P. Domínguez, M. Adenauer and G. Genovese. 2020. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the global agricultural markets. Environmental and Resource Economics 76 (4): 1067–1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00473-6
European Parliament. 2018. European Parliament resolution of 1 March 2018 on prospects and challenges for the EU apiculture sector.
Folke, C., S. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson and C.S. Holling. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu. Rev. Ecology Evolution and Systematics 35: 557–581. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105711
Gérard, M., M. Vanderplanck, T. Wood and D. Michez. 2020. Global warming and plant–pollinator mismatches. Emerging Topics in Life Sciences 4 (1): 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1042/ETLS20190139
Giannini, T.C., W.F. Costa, R.C. Borges, L. Miranda, C.P.W. da Costa, A.M. Saraiva and V.L.I. Fonseca. 2020. Climate change in the Eastern Amazon: crop-pollinator and occurrence-restricted bees are potentially more affected. Regional Environmental Change 20 (1): 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01611-y
Gorgievski, M.J. and U. Stephan. 2016. Advancing the psychology of entrepreneurship: A review of the psychological literature and an introduction. Applied Psychology 65 (3): 437–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12073
Hadi, S. 2020. New perspective on the resilience of SMEs proactive, adaptive, reactive from business turbulence: A systematic review. Journal of Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology 12: 1265–1275.
Hobbs, J.E. 2020. Food supply chains during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 68 (2): 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12237
Hollnagel, E. 2017. Epilogue: RAG–the resilience analysis grid. In Resilience Engineering in Practice: 275–296. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Hossain, M.B., T. Wicaksono, K.M. Nor, A. Dunay and C.B. Illes. 2022. E-commerce Adoption of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises During COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from South Asian Countries. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business 9 (1): 291–298. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2022.vol9.no1.0291
Hrynko, I., P. Kaczyński and B. Łozowicka. 2021. A global study of pesticides in bees: QuEChERS as a sample preparation methodology for their analysis–Critical review and perspective. Science of the Total Environment 792: 148385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148385
Hungarian Beekeepers Association. 2018. Hungarian Beekeeping National Program Environmental Monitoring Study 2017–2018. Hungarian Beekeepers Association, Budapest.
Hungarian Beekeepers Association. 2021. Bee Health and Environmental Monitoring Study. Hungarian Beekeepers Association, Budapest.
Hurta, H. and A. Dunay. 2013. Trust as a Social Capital in Hungarian Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. In Cs.B. Illés and F. Bylok (Eds.), People, Knowledge and Modern Technologies in the Management of Contemporary Organizations - Theoretical and Practical Approaches: 56–67. Szent István Publishing House, Gödöllő.
Illés, B.C., T. Oravecz, P. Žufan, P. Šedík and L. Mucha. 2021. Honey production competitiveness between the Visegrad countries analysis based on the relative comparative advantages indices. Economic Annals-XXI 189 (5–6): 57–68. https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V189-06
Ismaiel, S., S. Al Kahtani, N. Adgaba, A.A. Al-Ghamdi and A. Zulail. 2014. Factors that affect consumption patterns and market demands for honey in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Food and Nutrition Sciences 5: 1725–1737. https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2014.517186
Jacques, A., M. Laurent, E. Consortium, M. Ribière-Chabert, M. Saussac, S. Bougeard, G.E. Budge, P. Hendrikx and M.-P. Chauzat. 2017. A pan-European epidemiological study reveals honey bee colony survival depends on beekeeper education and disease control. PLoS ONE 12 (3): e0172591. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172591
Joshi, S.R. 2008. Honey in Nepal: Approach, strategy and intervention for subsector promotion. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH German Technical Cooperation/Private Sector Promotion-Rural Finance Nepal (GTZ/PSP-RUFIN).
Kaboré, B.A., L.D. Dahourou, W. Ossebi, N.S. Bakou, A. Traoré and A.M.G. Belem. 2022. Socioeconomic and technical characterization of beekeeping in Burkina Faso: case of the Center-West Region. Revue d’élevage et de médecine vétérinaire des pays tropicaux 75 (1): 3–8. https://doi.org/10.19182/remvt.36861
Kraus, S., T. Clauss, M. Breier, J. Gast, A. Zardini and V. Tiberius. 2020. The economics of COVID-19: initial empirical evidence on how family firms in five European countries cope with the corona crisis. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 26 (5): 1067–1092. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2020-0214
Kuboja, N., A. Isinika and F. Kilima. 2017. Determinants of economic efficiency among small-scale beekeepers in Tabora and Katavi regions, Tanzania: a stochastic profit frontier approach. Development Studies Research 4 (1): 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21665095.2017.1355738
Laborde, D., W. Martin, J. Swinnen and R. Vos. 2020. COVID-19 risks to global food security. Science 369 (6503): 500–502. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc4765
Lyubenov, L. 2019. Beekeeping marketing in the circular economy of the region of Strandzha. Journal of Mountain Agriculture on the Balkans 22 (3): 21–45.
Malhotra, N.K. 2016. Marketing research: An applied orientation, 7th edition: Pearson, London.
Malkamäki, A., A. Toppinen and M. Kanninen. 2016. Impacts of land use and land use changes on the resilience of beekeeping in Uruguay. Forest Policy and Economics 70: 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.002
Mucha, L., T. Oravecz, G. Totth and B.C. Illés. 2021. A magyar méz kereskedelmének komparatív előnyei [Comparative advantages of the Hungarian honey] GAZDÁLKODÁS: Scientific Journal on Agricultural Economics 65 (80-2021-453): 23–37. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.309541
Oravecz, T., L. Mucha and B.C. Illés. 2020a. A magyar méhészeti ágazat elmúlt 20 éve–Termelési alapok [The last 20 years of the Hungarian beekeeping Sector - Production funds]. GAZDÁLKODÁS: Scientific Journal on Agricultural Economics 64 (80-2020-1726): 435–451. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.305812
Oravecz, T., L. Mucha, R. Magda, G. Totth and C.B. Illés. 2020b. Consumers’ preferences for locally produced honey in Hungary. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 68 (2): 407–418. https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun202068020407
Özbakır, Ö.G., A. Öztokmak and T. Tohumcu. 2021. Beekeeping activities and consumption of beekeeping products by beekeepers under the pandemic conditions. Medycyna Weterynaryjna 78: 6637. https://doi.org/10.21521/mw.6637
Paas, W., I. Coopmans, S. Severini, M.K. Van Ittersum, M.P. Meuwissen and P. Reidsma. 2021. Participatory assessment of sustainability and resilience of three specialized farming systems. Ecology and Society 26 (2): 2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12200-260202
Park, J., T.P. Seager, P.S.C. Rao, M. Convertino and I. Linkov. 2013. Integrating risk and resilience approaches to catastrophe management in engineering systems. Risk Analysis 33 (3): 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01885.x
Pocol, C.B., P. Šedík, I.S. Brumă, A. Amuza and A. Chirsanova. 2021. Organic beekeeping practices in Romania: Status and perspectives towards a sustainable development. Agriculture 11 (4): 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11040281
Popp, J., A. Kiss, J. Oláh, D. Máté, A. Bai and Z. Lakner. 2018. Network analysis for the improvement of food safety in the international honey trade. Amfiteatru Economic 20 (47): 84–98. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2018/47/84
Rajan, T., H. Tennen, R.L. Lindquist, L. Cohen and J. Clive. 2002. Effect of ingestion of honey on symptoms of rhinoconjunctivitis. Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology 88 (2): 198–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1081-1206(10)61996-5
Ratten, V., V. Ramadani, L.-P. Dana, F. Hoy and J. Ferreira. 2017. Family entrepreneurship and internationalization strategies. Review of International Business and Strategy 27 (2): 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1108/RIBS-01-2017-0007
Schouten, C.N. 2020. Factors influencing beekeepers income, productivity and welfare in developing countries: a scoping review. Journal of Apicultural Research 60 (2): 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2020.1844464
Steinhauer, N. and C. Saegerman. 2021. Prioritizing changes in management practices associated with reduced winter honey bee colony losses for US beekeepers. Science of the Total Environment 753: 141629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141629
Taber, K.S. 2018. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education 48 (6): 1273–1296. https:/doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Thrassou, A., D. Vrontis and S. Bresciani. 2018. The agile innovation pendulum: A strategic marketing multicultural model for family businesses. International Studies of Management & Organization 48 (1): 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2018.1407178
Utaipanon, P., T.M. Schaerf and B.P. Oldroyd. 2019. Assessing the density of honey bee colonies at ecosystem scales. Ecological Entomology 44 (3): 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12715
Vercelli, M., S. Novelli, P. Ferrazzi, G. Lentini and C. Ferracini. 2021. A Qualitative Analysis of Beekeepers’ Perceptions and Farm Management Adaptations to the Impact of Climate Change on Honey Bees. Insects 12 (3): 228. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12030228
Vrontis, D., A. Thrassou, H. Chebbi and D. Yahiaoui. 2012. Transcending innovativeness towards strategic reflexivity. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 15 (4): 420–437. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522751211257097
Wakgari, M. and G. Yigezu. 2021. Honeybee keeping constraints and future prospects. Cogent Food & Agriculture 7 (1): 1872192. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2021.1872192
Welsh, C. 2020. Covid-19 and Food Security. Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC. Available online at https://www.csis.org/programs/global-food-security-program/covid-19-and-food-security
Workie, E., J. Mackolil, J. Nyika and S. Ramadas. 2020. Deciphering the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on food security, agriculture and livelihoods: A review of the evidence from developing countries. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 2: 100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2020.100014
Zhou, S., and Z. Xu. 2018. A novel internal validity index based on the cluster centre and the nearest neighbour cluster. Applied Soft Computing 71: 78–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.06.033
Demographic composition of respondents and presentation of beekeeping questions according to the factors of the beekeepers’ resilience
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 2 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0143
Corresponding author
