10 pages., Via online journal., Pollinating insects are integral to the health of all terrestrial ecosystems and agriculture worldwide. Urbanization can greatly reduce nutritional resources and habitat for pollinators. However, these losses can be mitigated through targeted landscape practices, such as planting nectar- and pollen-rich plants and managing pollinator habitat in urban areas, especially home landscapes. As homeowners attempt to conserve pollinators through horticultural practices, they often seek the advice and guidance of horticulture retail employees. The knowledge horticulture employees have about pollinators and the recommendations they provide to customers is largely unknown. A nationwide survey was developed and distributed with the objectives to 1) assess employee knowledge about pollinators and pollination biology, 2) discover what plant and management recommendations employees were giving customers pertaining to pollinator conservation, and 3) determine where to focus possible education and outreach, as well as which topics to focus educational programs on. Our findings suggest, among our respondents, that overall knowledge was adequate, with a mean score (±sd) being 8.37 (±3.23) of a possible range of 0–14 points. Uncertified and part-time employees were identified as having significantly lower scores. The subject of plant selection was found to have the largest gap in knowledge, with a mean score of 1.82 (±0.62) of a possible three points. We identified several opportunities for educational outreach, aimed at improving employee and customer knowledge on this important subject.
21 pages, Context: Honey bees provide multiple ecosystem services. Comparisons of coupled social-ecological systems (SES) can improve the understanding of the factors affecting honey bees and beekeeping. Objectives: Stressing the need for SES analyses, we explore beekeepers' perceived factors affecting bees and beekeeping, test the hypothesis that honey bee colony losses are associated to agricultural land use intensity, and discuss the role of beekeeping for rural development. Methods: We used as a case study the steep gradient in SES in Ukraine's Chernivtsi region with three strata: (i) traditional villages, (ii) intermediate and (iii) intensive agriculture. In each stratum, we analysed the social system using five open-ended focus groups. Regarding the ecological system, we analysed data about winter loss rate of honey bee colonies, number of colonies per beekeeper, the average amount of supplemental feeding, and proportion of beekeepers treating against Varroa mite. Results: Thirty-three themes were extracted, of which 73% concerned the social system at multiple levels of governance. The number of themes increased from the traditional stratum with higher winter colony losses to the intensive agriculture stratum with lower losses. This does not support the hypothesis that the intensive agriculture per se affect honey bees negatively. Conclusions: Social system factors dominate over ecological factors, and interact across scales. This requires systems analyses of honey bees and beekeeping. We see beekeeping as a social innovation enhancing stakeholders' navigation in social systems, thus supporting rural development in countries in transition like Ukraine.
