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.
9 pages., Via online journal., Certain pesticides are coming under scrutiny because of their impact on pollinator insects. Although most consumers express willingness to aid pollinators, the reasons for consumers’ preferences or barriers to purchasing pollinator-friendly plants and the types of pollinators’ that consumers are trying to protect are less understood. Using an online survey of 1200 Connecticut (CT) consumers, of which 841 had home landscapes, we find that 46% of consumers with home landscapes purchased pollinator-friendly plants to attract pollinators to their landscape. Consistent with past research that focused on consumers’ preferences for pollinator-friendly plants, the data also reveal that some consumers are willing to pay premiums for plants that contribute to pollinator’s health. However, only 17% stated that attracting pollinators was their primary motivation; a finding that suggests labeling alone will likely not motivate consumers to purchase plants. The major barriers to purchasing pollinator-friendly plants included lack of labeling (cited by 28%), followed by high price (28%). Consumers purchasing pollinator-friendly plants were trying to attract butterflies (Lepidoptera) (78%), bees (Apidae) (59%), hummingbirds (Trochilidae) (59%), and other birds (41%). We also find that demographics and purchasing behavior affect barriers and types of pollinators desired. Simply labeling plants has the potential to increase purchasing, but increasing price could be detrimental as many consumers feel pollinator-friendly plants are highly priced. Implications for ornamental horticulture stakeholders are discussed.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 153 Document Number: D07409
Notes:
Online via the Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Arizona State University,Phoenix, Arizona. 3 pages,
