Next Article in Journal
Mediterranean Diet: From Ancient Traditions to Modern Science—A Sustainable Way Towards Better Health, Wellness, Longevity, and Personalized Nutrition
Previous Article in Journal
Thermal Regime Characteristics of Alpine Springs in the Marginal Periglacial Environment of the Southern Carpathians
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Adoption of Sustainable Beekeeping Practices Among Rural Women in Hail Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Implications for Agricultural Extension

by
Adel Mohammad Almutlaq
,
Mohammad Shayaa Al-Shayaa
*,
Abdulaziz Thabet Dabiah
,
Jasser Shaman Alfridi
and
Abdulmalek Naji Alsanhani
Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Society, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(9), 4186; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094186
Submission received: 20 March 2025 / Revised: 28 April 2025 / Accepted: 29 April 2025 / Published: 6 May 2025

Abstract

:
Understanding beekeepers’ satisfaction, attitudes toward extension services, and the adoption of recommended beekeeping practices could play a vital role in designing and executing effective interventions to promote the adoption of recommended beekeeping practices to improve honey production. Therefore, a study was undertaken to assess beekeepers’ satisfaction and attitudes towards extension services and the level of adoption of recommended beekeeping practices among rural women in the Hail region, Saudi Arabia. Data were collected from women beekeepers located in the Hail region, Saudi Arabia, using a simple random sampling technique with the help of a pre-tested paper-based questionnaire. The results revealed that most beekeepers were highly satisfied and showed neutral attitudes toward extension services. Despite the neutral attitudes toward extension services, a considerable portion indicated a higher adoption of recommended beekeeping practices. Moreover, rural women needed professional guidance and training for beekeeping. The beekeepers’ age showed a negatively significant correlation with the beekeepers’ satisfaction. Beekeepers’ education level showed a positively significant correlation with satisfaction. The extension services provided to beekeepers showed a negatively significant correlation with beekeepers’ attitudes. Therefore, the study suggests that training extension agents through the active involvement of the Ministry of Environment, Water, and Agriculture, should be implemented to improve beekeepers’ attitudes toward beekeeping. In addition, the government should facilitate the adoption of innovative and sustainable beekeeping practices by enhancing its availability on the market at low prices.

1. Introduction

Bees play a significant role in crop pollination [1,2,3,4]. Bees are estimated to visit more than ninety percent of the world’s top 107 crops. However, wind- and self-pollinated grasses account for about sixty percent of worldwide food production without animal pollination [1]. Beekeeping is one of the sustainable agricultural activities that significantly contributes to rural development through its potential role in improving rural women’s livelihood.
Climate change, such as high temperature, is a big challenge for beekeeping sectors and food security. High temperatures could negatively affect insect species’ populations through effects on survival, life cycle, fecundity, and dispersal [5,6]. Variations in climate are known to influence the honeybee population, honeybee health, the pollination activity of insects, and their efficiency [7,8,9,10,11,12], with a major fall in bees and biodiversity [13,14,15,16,17]. Moreover, global warming could also adversely affect plant–pollinator mutualism, and subsequently, temporal mismatches among the mutualistic partners might arise [18,19,20,21,22]. Beekeepers around the world have adopted several sustainable beekeeping management practices to adapt to climate change. Beekeepers improved their beehive boxes, transferred their beehives to suitable locations, and enriched the honeybees’ food [23]. Moreover, the adoption of different adaptation strategies such as changing the type and increasing the number of hives reduced climate effects [24]. Indeed, beekeeping management practices reduce climate stress. The selection of breeds and enhanced placement of hives according to climate situation, supplementary feeding during resource-scarce periods, and integrated pest management (IPM) to control insects, pests, and other stressors [25].
Agricultural extension services play an important role in enhancing the knowledge needed to promote the adoption of sustainable beekeeping practices and foster the socio-economic status of rural women [26]. Rural women can overcome barriers to adopting sustainable beekeeping practices by attending training and workshops delivered by the extension department [27]. Saudi Arabia empowered the beekeeping industry through effective extension services and cooperative associations [28].
The low dissemination of agricultural advisory services among women hinders women’s decision-making and limits their involvement in agricultural entrepreneurial activities. Inclusive services are crucial for women’s empowerment in agriculture [29]. Agricultural extension services could empower women, promoting gender equality, rural development, and sustainable practices. They enhance farming expertise and cultural overcoming, disrupting traditional gender norms [30].
Undoubtedly, gender equality and women empowerment are pivotal to gender transformation and a comprehensive approach to advancing gender in agriculture [31]. According to Costa [32], the share of working women in agricultural employment increased from 56% to 64%, and men from 53% to 62%, across the countries. The legislatures of the democratic nations of Europe are fighting against discrimination and encouraging gender equality. Various stakeholders including public administrations, companies, and society are participating in this process [33]. In 2021, women empowerment was a major concern for the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially at the United Nations Food Systems Summit.
Moreover, the new Common Agricultural Policy (2023–2027) endorsed gender equality in rural areas. The different Member States and researchers discussed the issues faced by rural women and keenly focused on possible solutions to gender equality [33,34].
Agriculture contributes significantly to the economy of various countries around the world. In line with the Kingdom’s Vision 2030, the management of available natural resources by adopting sustainable good practices, with emphasis on empowerment of rural women, is one of the major objectives of the KSA agricultural policy. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provides a great opportunity for women in different sectors to achieve economic security through a sustainable development strategy. Through collaboration between the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Ministry of Water, Environment, and Agriculture (MEWA) of Saudi Arabia, the Sustainable Rural Agriculture Development (SRAD) program was designed and implemented. The program aims to develop capacities, enhance rural incomes of small-scale farmers, while conserving available natural resources [35]. It covers various sectors, including coffee, rose, rainfed cereals, sub-tropical fruits, honeybees, fisheries, and livestock, involving various stakeholders in the countryside across 11 regions [35]. On 15 October 2024, FAO Saudi Arabia exhibited International Women’s Day and demonstrated the impactful role of rural women in sustainable agricultural development. Moreover, Saudi REEF and the UN development program organized an event under the theme of Empowering for the Sustainable Future. This event provided income-generation opportunities for rural women through agricultural developments and small and medium enterprises [35,36]. In January 2025, Saudi REEF released 2.4 billion in financial support to uplift rural communities across the Kingdom [37].
Despite the harsh climate and arid conditions in Saudi Arabia [38], beekeeping is practiced on a large scale in many areas of the country. It is a significant source of income. The beekeeping industry is gradually increasing with several opportunities and challenges [39]. Beekeeping not only improves families’ livelihood but also grants a healthy sugar source, environmental sensitization, women empowerment, and social organization and plays a vital role in producing sub-products for healthcare and cosmetics [40]. Implementing beekeeping programs required inclusive mechanisms for choosing suitable beneficiaries and appropriate ongoing extension, training, mentoring, and market access to improve the beekeeping industry [41].
The Kingdom harvests more than 5000 tons of honey annually. The number of beehives surpasses one million denominations throughout the Kingdom [42]. In addition, beekeeping practices are carried out on a large scale in Saudi Arabia. Currently, the country is dependent on imports. It has been estimated that more than 15,000 metric tons of table honey are imported from Australia, Turkey, Mexico, Argentina, Pakistan, USA, Germany, and Yemen to meet the demand [43]. Generally, the prices of imported honey are lower than locally produced honey. However, Yemen supplies honey to Saudi Arabia, and local consumers are ready to pay up to USD 190 per kg. The Kingdom imports about 25,000 tons of honey annually. During the last three years, around 1.3 million parcels at SAR 130 million (USD 34.6 million) were delivered to Riyadh and used by beekeepers to produce honey [44].
Since 2018, the Ministry of Environment, Water, and Agriculture (MEWA) launched various programs to promote the honey industry. Honey contributes 1.07 percent to the country’s agricultural GDP. Six programs are running to support the beekeeping industry by developing infrastructure and local honeybee breeds. These programs focus on capacity building, regulating bee pastures, and stimulating investment and scientific research in beekeeping sectors [42].
In developing countries, rural populations are facing several challenges, including poor infrastructure, low agricultural productivity, vulnerability to natural disasters, climate change, increased aridity [45], poor market access, inconsistent government policies, poor gender integration, lack of proper agricultural extension service, unfavorable programs, and the cessation of initiatives developed by governments in developed countries as a result of the World Bank financial crisis [46].
Undoubtedly, rural women play a significant role in developing countries, making up 45% of the agricultural workforce [47]. Rural women in most parts of the world are involved in agricultural crop production and livestock breeding, providing their families with food, water, and fuel and contributing to non-agricultural activities to diversify their families’ livelihoods [48]. Many organizations and governments seek to empower rural women for the well-being of individuals, families, and rural communities [49]. In the 1980s, the World Bank introduced women empowerment in the development process to fight against poverty and social injustice [35].
The Saudi government has launched an initiative to empower rural women by developing their technical skills in managing and growing small and medium enterprises to fulfill local market demand. The initiative focused mainly on capacity building in various areas of sustainable development, including farming and crafts, and providing important equipment to enhance the quality of small and medium enterprise in the rural areas across the Kingdom’s regions [50]. Attention to women’s issues and their economic, political, and social empowerment has become a top priority of the Saudi leadership [51]. The Kingdom’s Vision of 2030 shows that the agricultural sector is a main pillar of sustainable development, where smallholders and producers, men and women, could play a vital role in rural agricultural development. The Ministry of Environment, Water, and Agriculture—facilitated through the Sustainable Rural Development Program, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations—provides technical advisory assistance to develop the capabilities of rural population [52].
The Saudi Reef program in KSA seeks to achieve environmental and agricultural sustainability by developing rural communities and providing job opportunities and livelihoods to small farmers [50]. The Sustainable Agricultural Rural Development Program “Saudi Reef” exclusively supports the bee sector by releasing SAR 140 million for 10,584 beneficiaries in various rural areas of the Kingdom. Saudi Reef’s financial and technical support aims to promote local beekeeping to achieve self-sufficiency from honey. The Kingdom established royal bee breeding and stations in Hail, Najran, Jazan, Medina, Tabuk, and Taif to protect the bees from diseases and pests [50].
Beekeepers are provided with modern beekeeping tools and technologies; three mobile laboratories and four mobile clinics are working to examine and diagnose bee diseases and pests. In the kingdom region, 5850 licenses allow the people of 13 administrative regions, including 1560 beekeepers in the Hail. Therefore, the improved understanding of bee contributions to sustainable development is essential for confirming viable bee systems [53].
Understanding the level of beekeepers’ satisfaction and their attitudes toward extension services is critical in assessing their preparedness to implement innovative beekeeping practices on their farms. It is also vital for designing relevant extension initiatives. Moreover, analyzing the adoption of sustainable beekeeping practices among beekeepers could also help inform the relevant agricultural institutions and policymakers in designing effective programs for beekeepers to facilitate the adoption of sustainable beekeeping practices at a large scale. Saudi Arabia plans to improve honey production to reduce high import and economic burden. Therefore, the current study assesses beekeepers’ satisfaction and attitudes towards sustainable beekeeping practices in Saudi Arabia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of Study Area

In the northwest of Saudi Arabia lies the Hail region. It is popular because of its diverse topography and geomorphology, extending over 125,000 km. Around 732,000 people are residents of this area [54]. The region contributes 55,270, 40,650, 18,380, and 1390 km2 of plains, dunes, mountains, and arable land, respectively [55]. Moreover, this region consists of rich agricultural resources, fertility of lands, an abundance of water, and a favorable climate and possesses around 15,000 agricultural land holdings. Various initiatives are underway to achieve a sustainable food value chain and food security through capacity building [56].

2.2. Study Population

The total population of 1560 rural women was identified by the Reef Program in the bee sector. A simple random sample technique was used to ensure equal representation across the defined study population. The required sample size of 364 beekeepers was determined based on Stephen Thampson’s equation to determine the sample size [57].
n = n p ( 1 p ) n 1 ( d 2 z 2 ) + p ( 1 p )
n: Community size; z: standard score corresponding to the significance level 0.95 is equal to 1.96; d: ratio error and equal to 0.05; and p: property availability and neutrality equal to 0.50.

2.3. Data Collection Method

Data were collected with the help of a paper-based structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to the beekeeper in their native language. They were informed about the objective of the study and were assured that the data would be used only for educational and research purposes. Out of the 364 beekeepers, 92 (around 25%) returned the complete questionnaires, which were used for the data analysis. Data collection was completed in 6 months: March–August 2024.

2.4. Instrumentation

The survey questionnaire consisted of different sections. The first section covered age, education level, occupation, primary job, primary source of income, the purpose of beekeeping, monthly income, experience in beekeeping, land ownership, beekeeping certificate, type of beehives used, number of beehives, and annual honey production. Beekeepers were asked to provide information about sources of information via a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high).
Questions about the need for professional guidance and training were asked using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). Beekeepers’ satisfaction with extension services was measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). Beekeepers’ attitudes toward extension services were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). The adoption of sustainable beekeeping practices among beekeepers was measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (all the time). The instrument’s reliability was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α = 0.78), which indicates the high consistency of the Likert scale items.

2.5. Validity and Reliability

A group of researchers at the Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Sociology, King Saud University, reviewed and validated the questionnaire for content consistency and validity. The reliability of the questionnaire was measured through a pilot study. During the pilot study, data were collected from thirty farmers, and McDonald’s omega coefficient was calculated to determine the reliability of the Likert scale. The value of McDonald’s omega coefficient was estimated to be 0.81. After these procedures, the survey was started to achieve the study goals.

2.6. Data Analysis

The demographics of the beekeepers were summarized using frequencies and percentages, as well as mean and standard deviation. Spearman’s correlation was used to measure the correlation between independent and dependent variables. Spearman’s correlation measures the strength of the relationship between independent and dependent variables [58]. Age, education, beekeeping experience, primary job, extension services, and satisfaction with extension services were taken as independent variables, while dependent variables used were beekeepers’ attitudes toward extension services, the adoption of sustainable beekeeping practices among beekeepers, and beekeepers’ satisfaction with extension services. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (IBM SPSS, version 28.0) was used for running the data analysis.

3. Results

Table 1 indicates the respondents’ socioeconomic and beekeeping characteristics. Most respondents (53.3%) were in the age group of 37 to 53. Only 40.2% of the respondents were less than 37 years old. Less than 5% of the respondents were more than 53 years old. Less than 5% of the respondents did not respond regarding their age. More than three-fifths of the respondents had obtained a university education. Only 32.6% of the respondents had basic education, and 4.3% were illiterate.
Over two-thirds of the respondents are involved in the beekeeping and processing industries. Specifically, 31.5% and 15.2% of the respondents practice beekeeping and processing, respectively. Less than 3% of the respondents did not respond regarding their occupation. Over three-fourths of the respondents were involved in full-time beekeeping and honey production. The remaining respondents were employed in the government sector (7.6%), private (2.2%) sector, or retired (5.4%). More than two-fourths of the respondents earned their primary source of income from beekeeping and being involved in trade and additional income. Only 31.5% of the respondents were involved in beekeeping as a hobby. Only 1.1% of respondents did not respond to the purpose of beekeeping. More than four-fifths of the respondents were earning less than SAR 5000. Additionally, 14.2% of the respondents earned from SAR 5000 to less than SAR 15,000. However, 5.4% of the respondents did not respond regarding their monthly income. More than half of the respondents had two years or less than two years of experience in beekeeping. Only 31.5% and 10.9% of respondents had up to six years and more than ten years of experience in beekeeping. Only 1.1% of the respondents did not respond regarding their experiences in beekeeping. More than 35% of respondents owned pastureland for beekeeping. In comparison, 25%, 26.1%, and 5.45% of respondents owned valleys, private farms, and protected land, respectively. More than three-fifths of respondents had a beekeeping practice certificate. Only 28.3% of respondents did not possess a beekeeping practice certificate.
More than three-fourths of respondents used modern hives. Only 15.2% of respondents used traditional hives. More than three-fourths of respondents had a hundred or less than a hundred hives. Only 16.3% of the respondents had more than a hundred hives. More than four-fifths of respondents produced 1000 kg or less of honey annually. Only 8.7% of respondents produced more than 1000 kg of honey annually.
Table 2 shows the respondents’ source of information regarding beekeeping. All responses were arranged in descending order by the average score. The results indicated that the mean score ranged from a maximum of 3.99 to a minimum of 2.94. For the source of information regarding beekeeping, “specialized agricultural websites” ranked first with an average score of 3.99. On the other hand, the “universities” ranked last with an average score of 2.94.
Table 3 shows the need for professional guidance regarding beekeeping. All responses were arranged in descending order by the average score. The results indicated that the mean score ranged from a maximum of 4.15 to a minimum of 3.82. For professional guidance regarding beekeeping, “productivity efficiency and honey quality” ranked first with an average score of 4.15. On the other hand, “processing industries” ranked last with an average score of 3.82.
Figure 1 shows beekeepers’ needs for professional guidance and training regarding beekeeping. The majority of the respondents (71.74%) showed a high need for professional guidance and training regarding beekeeping, whereas 18.48% and 9.78% of respondents expressed a medium and low need for guidance and training, respectively.
Table 4 shows the beekeepers’ satisfaction regarding extension services. All responses were arranged in descending order by the average score. The results indicated that the mean score ranged from a maximum of 3.63 to a minimum of 3.30. For beekeepers’ satisfaction regarding extension services, “awareness campaigns and agricultural extension caravans” ranked first with an average score of 3.63. On the other hand, beekeepers’ satisfaction regarding the extension service “support for processed agricultural products manufacturing” ranked last with an average score of 3.30.
Figure 2 shows beekeepers’ overall satisfaction regarding extension services. The majority of respondents (45.7%) showed a high satisfaction level regarding extension services, whereas 25% and 22.5% of respondents showed medium and low satisfaction, respectively.
Table 5 shows the beekeepers’ attitudes towards extension services. All responses were arranged in descending order by the average score. The results indicated that the mean score ranged from a maximum of 4.08 to a minimum of 3.66. For beekeepers’ attitudes towards extension services, “The Reef Program is beneficial and well-directed in supporting beekeepers” ranked first with an average score of 4.08. On the other hand, beekeepers’ attitudes towards the “Effectiveness in the institutions that adopt ideas and development, including the Rural Development Program” ranked last with an average score of 3.66.
Figure 3 shows the beekeepers’ overall attitudes toward extension services regarding beekeeping. The majority of the respondents (43.5%) were neutral, whereas 22.1% and 31.4% of the respondents showed positive and negative attitudes towards extension services.
Table 6 shows the industrial processing of beekeeping products. All responses were arranged in descending order by the average score. The results indicated that the mean score ranged from a maximum of 3.15 to a minimum of 2.43. The industrial processing of honey for “body care products” ranked first with an average score of 3.15. On the other hand, the industrial processing of honey for “royal jelly” ranked last by an average score of 2.43.
Figure 4 shows the overall industrial proficiency in manufacturing honey products. The majority of the respondents (51.1%) expressed high proficiency in honey products, whereas 31.5% and 8.7% of the respondents showed medium and high industrial proficiency in making honey products, respectively.
Table 7 shows the adoption of sustainable beekeeping practices among beekeepers. All responses were arranged in descending order by the average score. The results indicated that the mean score ranged from a maximum of 4.36 to a minimum of 3.75. For the adoption of sustainable beekeeping practices, “scientific methods are followed to protect bees from poisoning and pesticides” ranked first with an average score of 4.36. On the other hand, “Joinery of wooden beehives,” ranked last with an average score of 3.75.
Figure 5 shows the overall adoption of sustainable beekeeping practices among beekeepers. The majority of the respondents (72.8%) adopted sustainable beekeeping practices at a higher level, whereas 19.6% and 2.2% of the respondents adopted sustainable beekeeping practices at a medium and low level.
Figure 6 presents Spearman’s correlation between age, education, extension services regarding beekeeping, beekeepers’ satisfaction with extension services, beekeepers’ attitudes toward extension services, and beekeepers’ satisfaction with extension services.
Table 8 presents Spearman’s rank-order correlation analysis to determine the relationship between the respondents’ demographic characteristics and their satisfaction with extension services, beekeepers’ attitudes toward extension services, and adoption of beekeeping practices among beekeepers. Age had a significant negative correlation with beekeepers’ satisfaction with extension services (r = −0.330 **, p = 0.01). Young beekeepers are less likely to be satisfied with extension services than older beekeepers. Education level showed a significant positive correlation with beekeepers’ satisfaction with extension services (r = 0.247 *, p = 0.05). Beekeepers with higher educational qualifications are more likely to be satisfied with extension services than those with a lower educational level.
Beekeepers who received extension services showed a negative and significant correlation with their attitudes toward extension services (r = −0.0241 *, p = 0.01). It means the lack of extension services among beekeepers builds negative attitudes toward beekeeping. Beekeepers’ satisfaction with extension services shows a significant positive correlation (r = 0.497 **, p = 0.01) with beekeepers’ attitudes toward extension services. It means higher satisfaction with extension services among beekeepers improved their attitudes.

4. Discussion

This research investigates beekeepers’ satisfaction and attitudes toward extension services. In addition, it provides deep insight into sustainable beekeeping practices among beekeepers in Saudi Arabia. Findings revealed that most beekeepers were satisfied and presented neutral attitudes toward extension services. Those who participated in extension programs and training sessions gained entrepreneurial benefits. Strong [59] found extension agents disseminated innovative and sustainable beekeeping technologies to improve honey production in Kenya. Beekeepers who frequently visited the extension office were more aware of sustainable beekeeping technology. They had self-confidence about entrepreneurial behavior, and seemed more satisfied regarding extension services provided and economic gain. In the USA, Land Grant University provides online platforms like bee clubs, extension services, and apiary management technologies [60]. Beekeepers in the study area might gain similar support, improving their satisfaction with extension services. Beekeepers might be highly dependent on extension agents for technical advice. Extension services would increase their satisfaction and build confidence in communication. Similar findings regarding the role of agricultural extension agents have been reported by various researchers [61,62,63]. Our results contradict the findings of a qualitative study conducted by Benge and Amy [64], who revealed that commercial beekeepers were dissatisfied with extension services and being neglected when compared to hobby-type beekeeping practices. Commercial beekeepers have lost trust in extensions due to the beekeeping information that is published through the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), which is more for hobby beekeepers. Furthermore, they found that many extension agents showed less interest in commercial beekeeper education.
The neutral attitudes of beekeepers toward extension services might be due to various factors such as poor extension services, lack of interest in extension services, and weak government policies. Our findings contradict with the findings of a qualitative study conducted by Gikunda et al. [65], which revealed negative attitudes toward honey beekeeping among women. The reasons behind the negative attitudes among women were cultural restrictions such as taboos, inheritance, and traditions. Moreover, youth learned honey beekeeping skills from their parents only. They demanded strong agricultural extension services regarding honey beekeeping technologies. Anaeto et al. [66] reported that extension agents are commonly responsible for improving knowledge and skills and changing attitudes [61]. The lack of access to external information negatively affects farm productivity and may keep beekeepers’ attitudes neutral [67,68]. Beekeepers in the study area might face similar challenges. In Saudi Arabia, there is a dire need to improve women’s participation in beekeeping enterprises, extension training, and programs. Mburu et al. [69] found high participation of rural women in apiary management due to commercial insect programs, training, and the adoption of modern beekeeping practices.
Findings indicate high adoption of sustainable beekeeping practices among beekeepers. They might hold innovative information on the advantages of adopting sustainable beekeeping practices. It can be expected that beekeepers might have attended training sessions about advanced beekeeping techniques as the Bee Research Unit at King Khalid University and Aramco company initiated a training program entitled “Beekeeping and Bee Products” and the Beekeepers Cooperative Society in Rijal Alma has a program which purposes to train 160 people [70].
The findings reveal that young beekeepers seem less likely to be satisfied with extension services. Low satisfaction with extension services among young beekeepers might result from poor extension services or low interest and reliance on traditional information instead of extension contact. Our findings contradict with that of Feketéné Ferenczi et al. [71], who conducted a qualitative study and found higher satisfaction regarding professional instructions about honey beekeeping. Young beekeepers reported that beekeeper workshops helped them in learning honey beekeeping practices. Beekeepers’ information varies according to conditions. Organized training, skills development programs, and management techniques should be provided to young beekeepers to improve their satisfaction. The extension department must investigate the reasons for low satisfaction with extension services provided to young beekeepers [72].
Highly qualified beekeepers seemed satisfied with the extension services. Education among beekeepers is essential for successful beekeeping [73]. Education builds capacity, belief, and improved attitudes. Educated beekeepers have a great ability to understand the objectives of extension services and the advantages of innovative beekeeping technology disseminated by extension agents for desired purposes [60,74]. A qualitative study conducted by Mulatu et al. [75] revealed that the educated beekeepers have more access to innovative information, and the possibility of attending professional training. They also influence farmers′ adoption of contemporary hive beekeeping technologies and participate in income-generating diversification initiatives.
Beekeepers are facing various challenges due to irrelevant knowledge. A study conducted in the UK suggested that the government should make an effort to overcome these challenges. Meanwhile, the government of Saudi Arabia is striving to improve the technical knowledge of beekeepers through effective extension services [76].
Findings revealed that low dissemination of extension services caused negative attitudes toward extension services. A report prepared for the Sustainable Rural Agricultural Program (SARD) mentioned the advantages of the beekeeping sector in achieving the country’s economic goals, as expressed in Vision 2030. Progress towards developing the beekeeper sector can be achieved through institutional support, and training extension staff at various levels [44]. Therefore, it is understood that poor extension service might reduce honey production and demotivate beekeepers towards extension services. The improvement in extension services among beekeepers was suggested in a report published by MEWA [44].
For instance, In sub-Saharan Africa, beekeepers improved beekeeping practices, adopted sustainable beekeeping practices through extension services, and initiated enterprises [73]. Moreover, it reported that beekeeping extension services were largely provided by NGOs and public agricultural extension departments. Public agricultural extension services and private consultants mostly delivered agricultural extension services for other agricultural enterprises to non-beekeepers. Extension service officers and/or NGOs critically promote the adoption and persistence of sustainable beekeeping. For instance, several extension services have been subcontracted by the Ugandan Government to private service agents to balance the operating costs of frontline agricultural extension delivery in remote areas [77]. This demand was made by extension service providers, who tend to favor training, skills development, and equipment provision to farmer groups rather than individual farmers [78,79].
The findings revealed that satisfaction with extension services among beekeepers improved their attitudes toward extension services. Understandably, the quality, availability, accessibility, diversity, relevance, and effectiveness of extension services ultimately built positive attitudes [80,81]. According to researchers’ observations, rural women started beekeeping for economic benefits. They stated that disseminating innovative beekeeping techniques could improve their knowledge and income. Rural women were completely dependent on extension services in terms of beekeeping. Only a satisfactory degree of extension services might improve their attitudes toward extension services. Verbeke et al. [82] reported that beekeepers’ attitudes are driven through extension services and facilities to target markets by involving various stakeholders.

5. Conclusions

This study assesses beekeepers’ satisfaction and attitudes towards extension services and the level of adoption of recommended beekeeping practices among rural women in the Hail region, Saudi Arabia. Beekeepers were highly satisfied and showed neutral attitudes toward extension services. Despite the neutral attitudes toward extension services, a considerable portion indicated a higher adoption of recommended beekeeping practices. Moreover, rural women needed professional guidance and training for beekeeping.
Beekeepers in the young age group seemed less satisfied with the extension services. Highly educated beekeepers were more satisfied with the extension services. The decreased delivery of extension services to beekeepers decreased their attitudes toward extension services.
The findings of the study may have various policy implications. First, policymakers should understand the foremost obstacles to extension services. Initiatives should be put in place to educate the rural women who are involved in beekeeping sectors. Combined efforts should be made by governments, policymakers, and the Ministry of Environment, Water, and Agriculture to initiate training sessions for extension agents to improve the satisfaction and attitudes of beekeepers. Satisfaction and positive attitudes toward extension services could make knowledge transfer easy among beekeepers. Moreover, new research should be conducted to investigate the innovative, practical viability, and potential of sustainable beekeeping practices as an alternative to traditional beekeeping practices. The results of future research should be used for policymaking to stimulate sustainable beekeeping practices at the local level and, in turn, to reach one of the core goals of Vision 2030 for sustainable honey production.
The present study selected rural women involved in beekeeping only from the Hail governorate. The study findings may not be generalizable to beekeepers of other regions. It is, therefore, implied that similar research should be conducted in other regions of Saudi Arabia.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, A.M.A., M.S.A.-S. and A.T.D.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M.A., J.S.A., A.N.A. and M.S.A.-S.; writing—review and editing, M.S.A.-S., A.T.D. and J.S.A.; data collection, M.S.A.-S., A.T.D. and A.M.A.; analysis and data curation, A.M.A., A.N.A. and J.S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Research Ethics Committee of the Deanship of Graduate Studies at King Saud University (Approval Number: KSU-HE-24-1161).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Klein, A.-M.; Vaissière, B.E.; Cane, J.H.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Cunningham, S.A.; Kremen, C.; Tscharntke, T. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2007, 274, 303–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Gill, R.J.; Baldock, K.C.; Brown, M.J.; Cresswell, J.E.; Dicks, L.V.; Fountain, M.T.; Garratt, M.P.; Gough, L.A.; Heard, M.S.; Holland, J.M. Protecting an ecosystem service: Approaches to understanding and mitigating threats to wild insect pollinators. In Advances in Ecological Research; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; Volume 54, pp. 135–206. [Google Scholar]
  3. Potts, S.G.; Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.; Ngo, H.T.; Biesmeijer, J.C.; Breeze, T.D.; Dicks, L.V.; Garibaldi, L.A.; Hill, R.; Settele, J.; Vanbergen, A.J. The Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production: Summary for Policymakers; Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Bonn, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  4. Klein, A.-M.; Boreux, V.; Fornoff, F.; Mupepele, A.-C.; Pufal, G. Relevance of wild and managed bees for human well-being. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2018, 26, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Strange, E.E.; Ayres, M.P. Climate Change Impacts: Encyclopedia of Life Sciences; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  6. Al-Rawashdeh, Z.B.; Al-Dalaeen, J.A.; AL-Nawaiseh, M.B.; Karaje, M.R.; Al-Dalain, S.A. Impact of Climate Change on the Emergence of Plant Pathogens in Tomato Plants. Int. J. Agric. Biosci. 2024, 13, 540–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Price, M.V.; Campbell, D.R.; Waser, N.M.; Brody, A.K. Bridging the generation gap in plants: Pollination, parental fecundity, and offspring demography. Ecology 2008, 89, 1596–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Reddy, P.; Verghese, A.; Rajan, V.V. Potential impact of climate change on honeybees (Apis spp.) and their pollination services. Pest Manag. Hortic. Ecosyst. 2012, 18, 121–127. [Google Scholar]
  9. Giannini, T.C.; Costa, W.F.; Borges, R.C.; Miranda, L.; da Costa, C.P.W.; Saraiva, A.M.; Imperatriz Fonseca, V.L. Climate change in the Eastern Amazon: Crop-pollinator and occurrence-restricted bees are potentially more affected. Reg. Environ. Change 2020, 20, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mahankuda, B.; Tiwari, R. Impact of Climate Change on Honeybees and Crop Production. In Adapting to Climate Change in Agriculture-Theories and Practices: Approaches for Adapting to Climate Change in Agriculture in India; Sheraz Mahdi, S., Singh, R., Dhekale, B., Eds.; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ali, M.A.; Eletmany, M.R. Climate change impacts on honeybee spread and activity: A scientific review. Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 2023, 18, 531–554. [Google Scholar]
  12. Zapata-Hernández, G.; Gajardo-Rojas, M.; Calderón-Seguel, M.; Muñoz, A.A.; Yáñez, K.P.; Requier, F.; Fontúrbel, F.E.; Ormeño-Arriagada, P.I.; Arrieta, H. Advances and knowledge gaps on climate change impacts on honey bees and beekeeping: A systematic review. Glob. Change Biol. 2024, 30, e17219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Potts, S.G.; Biesmeijer, J.C.; Kremen, C.; Neumann, P.; Schweiger, O.; Kunin, W.E. Global pollinator declines: Trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pachauri, R.K.; Reisinger, A. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Ipcc: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  15. Nieto, A.; Roberts, S.P.M.; Kemp, J.; Rasmont, P.; Kuhlmann, M.; García Criado, M.; Biesmeijer, J.C.; Bogusch, P.; Dathe, H.H.; De la Rúa, P.; et al. European Red List of Bees; Publication Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2014; p. 86. [Google Scholar]
  16. Quaranta, M.; Cornalba, M.; Biella, P.; Comba, M.; Battistoni, A.; Rondinini, C.; Teofili, C. Lista Rossa IUCN Delle Api Italiane Minacciate; Comitato Italiano IUCN e Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare: Rome, Italy, 2018; p. 68. [Google Scholar]
  17. FAO. The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019; p. 572. [Google Scholar]
  18. Memmott, J.; Craze, P.G.; Waser, N.M.; Price, M.V. Global warming and the disruption of plant–pollinator interactions. Ecol. Lett. 2007, 10, 710–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hegland, S.J.; Nielsen, A.; Lázaro, A.; Bjerknes, A.L.; Totland, Ø. How does climate warming affect plant-pollinator interactions? Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12, 184–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Bartomeus, I.; Ascher, J.S.; Wagner, D.; Danforth, B.N.; Colla, S.; Kornbluth, S.; Winfree, R. Climate-associated phenological advances in bee pollinators and bee-pollinated plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 20645–20649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Türkoğlu, N.; Şensoy, S.; Aydın, O. Effects of climate changes on phenological periods of apple, cherry and wheat in Turkey Türkiye’de iklim değişikliğinin elma, kiraz ve buğdayın fenolojik dönemlerine etkileri. J. Hum. Sci. 2016, 13, 1036–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gérard, M.; Vanderplanck, M.; Wood, T.; Michez, D. Global warming and plant–pollinator mismatches. Emerg. Top. Life Sci. 2020, 4, 77–86. [Google Scholar]
  23. Landaverde, R.; Rodriguez, M.T.; Parrella, J.A. Honey Production and Climate Change: Beekeepers’ Perceptions, Farm Adaptation Strategies, and Information Needs. Insects 2023, 14, 493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nemati, Z.; Ghanbari, S. Perception and adaptation strategies of beekeepers towards climate change, northwest Iran. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2025, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Richardson, E.; Thompson, D. Adaptive Beekeeping Strategies to Mitigate Climate Impacts on Honey Bees in Australia. Glob. Res. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Manag. 2025, 1, 19–27. [Google Scholar]
  26. Pocol, C.B.; McDONOUGH, M. Women, Apiculture and Development: Evaluating the Impact of a Beekeeping Project on Rural Women’s Livelihoods. Bull. Univ. Agric. Sci. Vet. Med. Cluj-Napoca. Hortic. 2015, 72, 487–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Prodanović, R.; Brkić, I.; Soleša, K.; Ljubojević Pelić, D.; Pelić, M.; Bursić, V.; Vapa Tankosić, J. Beekeeping as a tool for sustainable rural development. J. Agron. Technol. Eng. Manag. 2024, 7, 1054–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Herab, A.; Al-Ghamdi, A.; Alzahrani, K.; Elhindi, K.M.; Muddassir, M.; Kassem, H.S. A framework for quantifying the strength of partnerships between agricultural cooperatives and development actors: A case study in saudi arabia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 20, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lecoutere, E.; Spielman, D.J.; Van Campenhout, B. Empowering women through targeting information or role models: Evidence from an experiment in agricultural extension in Uganda. World Dev. 2023, 167, 106240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mishra, G.; Suryavanshi, A.; Pathak, D.K. Women Empowerment through Agriculture Extension Services. In Advanced Trends in Agricultural Extension; Integrated Publications: Rohini, India, 2024; pp. 41–52. [Google Scholar]
  31. Quisumbing, A.; Cole, S.; Elias, M.; Faas, S.; Galiè, A.; Malapit, H.; Meinzen-Dick, R.; Myers, E.; Seymour, G.; Twyman, J. Measuring Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture: Innovations and evidence. Glob. Food Secur. 2023, 38, 100707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Costa, V.; Piedrahita, N.; Mane, E.; Davis, B.; Slavchevska, V.; Gurbuzer, Y.L. Women’s Employment in Agrifood Systems. Background Paper for the Status of Women in Agrifood Systems; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2023; Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/e7689bf7-00f0-465b-ad03-e0c56ffb14b1/content (accessed on 20 April 2025).
  33. Sabourin, A.; Jones, A. More Than Targets: How the EU Promotes Democracy, Human Rights and Gender Equality Through Global Europe and Beyond; ECDPM Discussion Paper 337; ECDPM: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2023; Available online: https://ecdpm.org/application/files/3316/7845/4683/How-EU-Promotes-Democracy-Human-Rights-Gender-Equality-Global-Europe-Beyond-ECDPM-Discussion-Paper-337-2023.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2025).
  34. Salzinger, M.; Desmidt, S. Gender Equality in EU External Action: The Gender Action Plan and the Women, Peace and Security Agenda; ECDPM: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  35. FAO. FAO Regional Office for Near East and North Africa. Available online: https://www.fao.org/neareast/news/stories/details/towards-a-sustainable-future--empowering-rural-women-in-saudi-arabia-through-sustainable-rural-agriculture/en#:~:text=The%20government%20in%20Saudi%20Arabia,rural%20women%20to%20accelerate%20progress.&text=With%20technical%20support%20from%20FAO,Agriculture%20Development%20(SRAD)%20programme (accessed on 12 February 2025).
  36. GOV.SA. Reef National Foundation Launches Initiative to Empower Rural Women across Saudi Arabia. Available online: https://my.gov.sa/en/news/16566 (accessed on 18 April 2025).
  37. Agency, S.P. Saudi Reef Program Backs Rural Development with SAR 2.4 Billion Since Launch. Available online: https://www.spa.gov.sa/en/N2242136. (accessed on 18 April 2025).
  38. Ulllah, M.; Alsanhani, A.; Aldawdahi, N. Farmer’s perception of climate change: An assessment from medina region, Saudi Arabia. Agrobiol. Rec. 2024, 18, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Al-Ghamdi, A.; Nuru, A. Beekeeping in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia opportunities and challenges. Bee World 2013, 90, 54–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vinci, G.; Rapa, M.; Roscioli, F. Sustainable development in rural areas of Mexico through beekeeping. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Invent. 2018, 4, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nat Schouten, C.; John Lloyd, D. Considerations and factors influencing the success of beekeeping programs in developing countries. Bee World 2019, 96, 75–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Alarify, I.A.; Rawwash, A.A.E.M.M.; Mohmmed, S.E.R. Comparing Saudi Honey with Honey in the Saudi Market-A Statistical Study. Spec. Ugdym. 2022, 1, 43. [Google Scholar]
  43. CDSI. Central Department of Statistics & Information, Saudi Arabia; Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation: Seattle, WA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  44. FAO. Beekeeping and Honey Production Sector Review and Situation Analysis in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture Saudi Arabia: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2021. Available online: https://www.mewa.gov.sa/reefea/attachments/%D9%82%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%B9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B3%D9%84/BEE-2021-Honey%20Sector%20Review-TC.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2025).
  45. Hamza, R.M.A.; Aslam, H.; Aleem, K.; Bukhari, M.A.; Nadeem, J.; Farooq, H.; Akbar, M.; Manzoor, M.; Ashraf, H. The genetics of insecticide resistance in relation to climate change. Agrobiol. Rec. 2023, 12, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. World Bank. How Rural Development and Agriculture Can Support Social Inclusion in Developing Countries—A Sub-Saharan Approach. Jemilehin funmilayoelsy Buligwa Asenanewton Muchiti Mayulammatshepo Seoka. 14 November 2022. Available online: https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/youth-transforming-africa/how-rural-development-and-agriculture-can-support-social-inclusion (accessed on 9 January 2025).
  47. UN Women. Rural Women, Official Web of Sit, Data Inter 15/2/2024 Rural Women | What We Do: Economic Empowerment | UN Women—Headquarters. 2024. Available online: https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/economic-empowerment/rural-women (accessed on 15 April 2025).
  48. Al-Khalayleh, M.A.H.A. The Role of Municipalities in Empowering Women in Rural Communities. Int. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2022, 39, 83–94. [Google Scholar]
  49. United Nations General Assembly Economic and Social Council. Joint Action Plan of the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2012. Available online: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n11/631/97/pdf/n1163197.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2025).
  50. Newspaper, Alriyadh. “Saudi Reef”: SAR 140 million to Support the Honey Sector 18 April 2024. Available online: https://www.alriyadh.com/2070582 (accessed on 22 April 2025).
  51. Al-Turaif, G.A.; Al-Rashidi, A. Planning Indicators to Empower Saudi Women in the Fields of Tourism Investment in Light of Vision 2030. Al-Qura Univ. J. 2019, 12. Available online: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=b1f25d19-acb8-3fc6-9d5e-c5992902ee66 (accessed on 13 March 2025).
  52. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Practical Manual on Organic Beekeeping; BEE/051/2022/5; Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 2022. Available online: https://www.mewa.gov.sa/reefea/attachments/%D9%82%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%B9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B3%D9%84/BEE-2022-Manual%20on%20organic%20beekeeping.pdf (accessed on 13 March 2025).
  53. Patel, V.; Pauli, N.; Biggs, E.; Barbour, L.; Boruff, B. Why bees are critical for achieving sustainable development. Ambio 2021, 50, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Emirate of Hail Region About the Region, the Website of the Emirate of Hail Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Retrieved Date. 2024. Available online: https://hail.gov.sa/en/node/1109 (accessed on 18 September 2024).
  55. Hereher, M.E.; Al-Shammari, A.M.; Abd Allah, S.E. Land cover classification of Hail—Saudi Arabia using remote sensing. Int. J. Geosci. 2012, 3, 349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Saudi Ministry of Investment. An Overview of the Hail Region, Invest in Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia. Available online: https://www.investsaudi.sa/ar/meetTheKingdom/province/hail (accessed on 18 September 2024).
  57. Thompson, S.K. Sampling; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Volume 755. [Google Scholar]
  58. Bocianowski, J.; Wrońska-Pilarek, D.; Krysztofiak-Kaniewska, A.; Matusiak, K.; Wiatrowska, B. Comparison of Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients values for selected traits of Pinus sylvestris L. Res. Sq. 2024, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Strong, M.M. The Effect of Farmer Chacteristics on Entrepreneurial Behavior of Beekeepers in Kibwezi West Sub County, Makueni County; Strathmore University: Nairobi, Kenya, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  60. Honeycutt, C.M. Profitable, Alternative Income Generation and Improved Quality of Life Among Global Beekeepers; East Tennessee State University: Johnson, TN, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  61. Shah, J.A.; Asmuni, A.; Ismail, A. Roles of extension agents towards agricultural practice in Malaysia. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2013, 3, 59–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Muddassir, M.; Alotaibi, B.A. Farmers’ awareness of improved maize cropping practices in Punjab, Pakistan. Int. J. Agric. Biosci. 2023, 12, 8–17. [Google Scholar]
  63. Muddassir, M.; Al Shenaifi, M.S.; Kassem, H.S.; Alotaibi, B.A. Adoption of improved maize production technologies in Punjab Province, Pakistan. J. Agric. Ext. 2020, 24, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Benge, M.; Amy, V. Challenges and barriers to conducting commercial beekeeping education programs in Florida. Adv. Agric. Dev. 2023, 4, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gikunda, R.M.; Ooga, D.M.; Okiamba, I.N.; Anyuor, S. Cultural barriers towards women and youth entry to apiculture production in Maara Sub-County, Kenya. Adv. Agric. Dev. 2021, 2, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Anaeto, F.C.; Asiabaka, C.; Nnadi, F.; Ajaero, J.; Aja, O.; Ugwoke, F.; Ukpongson, M.; Onweagba, A. The role of extension officers and extension services in the development of agriculture in Nigeria. J. Agric. Res. 2012, 1, 180–185. [Google Scholar]
  67. Musa, M.; Ismail, M.M.; Ismail, W.I. Effectiveness of extension agent services in influencing the adoption of modern hive in sustainable stingless beekeeping. J. Sustain. Sci. Manag. 2019, 14, 14–24. [Google Scholar]
  68. Ismail, M.M.; Ismail, W.I.W. Development of stingless beekeeping projects in Malaysia. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 52, 00028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mburu, P.D.M.; Affognon, H.; Irungu, P.; Mburu, J.; Raina, S. Gender roles and constraints in beekeeping: A case from Kitui County, Kenya. Bee World 2017, 94, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Univerity, K.K. Beekeeping and Bee Products” Training Program. 2025. Available online: https://www.kku.edu.sa/en/news/100767 (accessed on 8 January 2025).
  71. Feketéné Ferenczi, A.; Szűcs, I.; Bauerné Gáthy, A. “What’s Good for the Bees Will Be Good for Us!”—A Qualitative Study of the Factors Influencing Beekeeping Activity. Agriculture 2024, 14, 890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Azeez, K.K. Analysis of information needs of beekeepers in Oyo State, Nigeria. J. Agric. Res. Dev. Ext. Technol. 2022, 4, 18–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Amulen, D.R.; D’Haese, M.; Ahikiriza, E.; Agea, J.G.; Jacobs, F.J.; de Graaf, D.C.; Smagghe, G.; Cross, P. The buzz about bees and poverty alleviation: Identifying drivers and barriers of beekeeping in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mujuni, A.; Natukunda, K.; Kugonza, D.R. Factors affecting the adoption of beekeeping and associated technologies in Bushenyi District, Western Uganda. Development 2012, 24, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  75. Mulatu, A.; Marisennayya, S.; Bojago, E. Adoption of Modern Hive Beekeeping Technology: The Case of Kacha-Birra Woreda, Kembata Tembaro Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Adv. Agric. 2021, 2021, 4714020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Maderson, S. Co-producing agricultural policy with beekeepers: Obstacles and opportunities. Land Use Policy 2023, 128, 106603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Benin, S.; Nkonya, E.; Okecho, G.; Pender, J.; Nahdy, S.; Mugarura, S. Assessing the Impact of the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) in the Uganda Rural Livelihoods; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  78. Ramirez, A. The influence of social networks on agricultural technology adoption. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 79, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Girma, J.; Gardebroek, C. The impact of contracts on organic honey producers’ incomes in southwestern Ethiopia. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 50, 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kassem, H.S.; Alotaibi, B.A.; Muddassir, M.; Herab, A. Factors influencing farmers’ satisfaction with the quality of agricultural extension services. Eval. Program Plan. 2021, 85, 101912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Dabiah, A.T. Rural community’s participation rate and perceived benefits in a rural area in Saudi Arabia. Agrobiol. Rec. 2023, 12, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Verbeke, W.; Diallo, M.A.; van Dooremalen, C.; Schoonman, M.; Williams, J.H.; Van Espen, M.; D’Haese, M.; de Graaf, D.C. European beekeepers’ interest in digital monitoring technology adoption for improved beehive management. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2024, 227, 109556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Beekeepers’ need for professional beekeeping guidance and training.
Figure 1. Beekeepers’ need for professional beekeeping guidance and training.
Sustainability 17 04186 g001
Figure 2. Overall satisfaction level of beekeepers with extension services.
Figure 2. Overall satisfaction level of beekeepers with extension services.
Sustainability 17 04186 g002
Figure 3. Beekeepers’ overall attitudes toward extension services.
Figure 3. Beekeepers’ overall attitudes toward extension services.
Sustainability 17 04186 g003
Figure 4. Overall industrial proficiency in manufacturing honey products.
Figure 4. Overall industrial proficiency in manufacturing honey products.
Sustainability 17 04186 g004
Figure 5. Overall adoption of sustainable beekeeping practices among beekeepers.
Figure 5. Overall adoption of sustainable beekeeping practices among beekeepers.
Sustainability 17 04186 g005
Figure 6. Relationships between independent and dependent variables based on Spearman’s correlation analysis.
Figure 6. Relationships between independent and dependent variables based on Spearman’s correlation analysis.
Sustainability 17 04186 g006
Table 1. Socioeconomic characteristics of respondents (n = 92).
Table 1. Socioeconomic characteristics of respondents (n = 92).
VariablesFrequency%
Age
Less than 37 years3740.2
From 37 to 53 years4953.3
More than 53 years33.3
Did not respond33.3
Educational Level
Illiterate44.3
Basic education3032.6
University education5863.0
Occupation
Full-time beekeeping2931.5
Processing industries1415.2
Beekeeping and processing industries4751.1
Did not respond22.2
Primary Job
Government employee77.6
Private sector employee22.2
Retired55.4
Full-time beekeeping and honey production7278.3
Did not respond66.5
Is Beekeeping Your Primary Source of Income?
Yes5054.3
No4245.7
Purpose of the Beekeeping
For trade and additional income5458.7
For self-sufficiency88.7
As a hobby2931.5
Did not respond11.1
Monthly Income from Beekeeping
Less than SAR 5000 7480.4
From SAR 5000 to less than SAR 10,000 1112.0
From SAR 10,000 to less than SAR 15,00022.2
Did not respond55.4
Experience in Beekeeping
2 years or less5256.5
Up to 6 years2931.5
More than 10 years1010.9
Did not respond11.1
Land Ownership Type
Protected areas55.4
Private farm2426.1
Valleys2325.0
Pastures3437.0
Did not respond66.5
Do You Have a Beekeeping Practice Certificate?
No2628.3
No, I do not update it regularly55.4
Yes6065.2
Did not respond11.1
Type of Beehives Used
Traditional hives (stick hives)1415.2
Modern hives (langstroth hives)7379.3
Did not respond55.4
Number of Beehives
100 hives or less7278.3
More than 100 hives1516.3
Did not respond55.4
Annual Honey Production
1000 kg or less7783.7
More than 1000 kg88.7
Did not respond77.6
Table 2. Source of information (n = 92).
Table 2. Source of information (n = 92).
NVery LowLowMediumHighVery HighMean ± SDRank
Specialized Agricultural Websites854.32.221.726.138.03.99 ± 1.0861st
Interested Peers876.54.318.523.941.33.94 ± 1.2042nd
Traditional Beekeeping and Honey Production888.73.322.825.035.93.80 ± 1.2433rd
Scientific Extension Bulletins877.66.529.326.125.03.57 ± 1.1874th
Social Media Influencers858.77.628.321.726.13.53 ± 1.2505th
Agricultural Guide847.67.637.018.520.73.40 ± 1.1736th
Saudi Food and Drug Authority845.414.129.323.918.53.39 ± 1.1517th
Your Agricultural Guide Account859.812.027.226.117.43.32 ± 1.2278th
Universities8415.216.329.319.610.92.94 ± 1.2459th
Table 3. The need for professional guidance among rural women (n = 92).
Table 3. The need for professional guidance among rural women (n = 92).
PhrasesnVery LowLowMediumHighVery HighMean ± SDRank
Productivity Efficiency and Honey Quality863.33.315.226.145.76 ± 4.151st
Production Safety855.44.310.922.848.97 ± 4.142nd
Modern Beekeeping Practices854.35.417.427.238.07 ± 3.963rd
Bee Protection from Diseases and Poisoning854.35.421.725.035.97 ± 3.894th
Processing Industries874.35.429.319.635.95 ± 3.825th
Summated mean = 22.7; SD = 6.6; range = 25; low = 5; high = 30; and item mean = 4.54.
Table 4. Beekeepers’ satisfaction level with extension services (n = 92).
Table 4. Beekeepers’ satisfaction level with extension services (n = 92).
ItemsNVery LowLowMediumHighVery HighMean ± SDRank
Awareness Campaigns and Agricultural Extension Caravans865.416.317.422.831.53.63 ± 1.2751st
Training Courses848.712.020.721.728.33.54 ± 1.3122nd
Extension Seminars and Workshops869.810.922.822.827.23.50 ± 1.3083rd
Administrative and Support Services859.818.515.223.925.03.39 ± 1.3554th
Support for Small-Scale Women Investors8513.016.316.321.725.03.32 ± 1.4085th
Support for Processed Agricultural Product Manufacturing8615.215.216.319.627.23.30 ± 1.4566th
Summated mean = 20.5; SD = 7.54; range = 25; low = 6; high = 30; and item mean = 3.41.
Table 5. Beekeepers’ attitudes toward provided extension services (n = 92).
Table 5. Beekeepers’ attitudes toward provided extension services (n = 92).
ItemsNStrongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly AgreeMean ± SDRank
The Reef Program is beneficial and well directed in supporting beekeepers.875.43.39.835.940.24.08 ± 1.0911st
The provided programs have helped empower you for success.863.35.412.040.232.64.00 ± 1.0172nd
Has the program contributed to increasing the knowledge level of female beekeepers?864.36.56.545.730.43.98 ± 1.0513rd
Did the program fulfill beekeepers’ needs?864.35.49.844.629.33.95 ± 1.0394th
Has the financial support from the Reef Program helped improve product quality?874.37.616.332.633.73.89 ± 1.1255th
It improves marketing skills.864.37.612.043.526.13.85 ± 1.0686th
It increases the administrative awareness of program participants.864.36.515.241.326.13.84 ± 1.0617th
There is effectiveness in the institutions that adopt ideas and development, including the Rural Development Program.875.412.016.337.023.93.66 ± 1.1608th
Summated mean = 30; SD = 8.4; range = 35; low = 5; high = 40; and item mean = 3.75.
Table 6. Processing industries of beekeeping products (n = 92).
Table 6. Processing industries of beekeeping products (n = 92).
ItemsNNot PossibleMediumGoodVery HighMean ± SDRank
Body Care Products837.615.222.843.53.15 ± 0.991st
Cosmetic Products838.717.420.743.53.13 ± 0.992nd
Honeycomb Honey775.417.423.937.03.10 ± 0.953rd
Face Care Products837.615.222.843.53.10 ± 1.034th
Pollen Grains795.420.721.738.03.08 ± 0.975th
Soap838.715.227.239.13.07 ± 0.996th
Traditional Honey7810.915.217.441.33.05 ± 1.097th
Medical Products8013.016.321.735.92.93 ± 1.108th
Propolis7916.328.318.522.82.56 ± 1.089th
Royal Jelly7727.216.317.422.82.43 ± 1.2010th
Summated mean = 28.25; SD = 8.48; range = 34; low = 6; high = 40; and item mean = 2.8.
Table 7. Adoption of sustainable beekeeping practices among beekeepers (n = 92).
Table 7. Adoption of sustainable beekeeping practices among beekeepers (n = 92).
ItemsNNot at AllRarelySometimesOftenAll the TimeMean ± SDRank
Scientific methods are followed to protect bees from poisoning and pesticides861.114.127.251.104.36 ± 0.821st
Pesticide poisoning detection and ways to avoid it851.11.114.125.051.14.34 ± 0.862nd
Knowledge of dealing with apiaries during dust storms or rain storms861.12.212.027.251.14.34 ± 0.873rd
Pests and enemies of bees are diagnosed periodically851.11.112.030.447.84.33 ± 0.834th
Know the types of trees surrounding the environment and their flowering seasons851.11.113.029.347.84.32 ± 0.845th
Know the natural environment that harms bees as places where contaminated water and waste collect852.215.223.951.104.32 ± 0.916th
Bees are examined in periodic ways to detect diseases and viruses861.117.425.050.0 4.31 ± 0.857th
Do you have full knowledge of the life cycle of members of the bee sect?872.23.315.223.950.04.23 ± 0.998th
832.21.116.325.045.74.23 ± 0.959th
Care is paid to the health of bees and the examination of the denominations elected for breeding862.21.117.426.146.74.22 ± 0.9510th
The examination and detection of the dream of Farao and knowledge of the methods of treatment851.13.317.423.946.74.21 ± 0.9511th
Nosema is detected, controlled, and methods of treatment are known851.14.317.427.242.44.14 ± 0.9612th
Breeding behavior and protection from diseases and pests851.14.318.526.142.44.13 ± 0.9713th
Methods are used to address nutritional deficiencies for hives and bees852.23.321.721.743.54.09 ± 1.0314th
Knowledge of nature reserves provides accommodation for cells851.14.320.727.239.14.07 ± 0.9715th
Other causes that weaken the sects are identified as protein deficiency, carbohydrate deficiency, and queens’ failure851.13.319.632.635.94.07 ± 0.9216th
Scientific methods are followed in the selection, production, and breeding of queen bees853.32.217.432.637.04.06 ± 1.0017th
Manufacture beeswax845.44.318.526.137.03.93 ± 1.1518th
The joinery of wooden beehives846.58.718.525.032.63.75 ± 1.2419th
Summated mean = 77.73; SD = 16.34; range = 83; low = 12; high = 95; and item mean = 4.09.
Table 8. Spearman’s rank-order correlation analysis (n = 92).
Table 8. Spearman’s rank-order correlation analysis (n = 92).
Independent VariablesDependent Variables
Beekeepers’ Satisfaction with Extension ServicesBeekeepers’ Attitudes Toward Extension ServicesAdoption of Sustainable Beekeeping Practices Among Beekeepers
Age−0.330 **−0.1510.111
Education0.247 *0.161−0.121
Experience of beekeeping−0.147−0.154−0.011
Primary job−0.088−0.0700.066
Extension services regarding beekeeping−0.128−0.241 *−0.013
Beekeepers’ satisfaction with extension services1.000.497 **0.143
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Almutlaq, A.M.; Al-Shayaa, M.S.; Dabiah, A.T.; Alfridi, J.S.; Alsanhani, A.N. Adoption of Sustainable Beekeeping Practices Among Rural Women in Hail Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Implications for Agricultural Extension. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4186. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094186

AMA Style

Almutlaq AM, Al-Shayaa MS, Dabiah AT, Alfridi JS, Alsanhani AN. Adoption of Sustainable Beekeeping Practices Among Rural Women in Hail Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Implications for Agricultural Extension. Sustainability. 2025; 17(9):4186. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094186

Chicago/Turabian Style

Almutlaq, Adel Mohammad, Mohammad Shayaa Al-Shayaa, Abdulaziz Thabet Dabiah, Jasser Shaman Alfridi, and Abdulmalek Naji Alsanhani. 2025. "Adoption of Sustainable Beekeeping Practices Among Rural Women in Hail Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Implications for Agricultural Extension" Sustainability 17, no. 9: 4186. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094186

APA Style

Almutlaq, A. M., Al-Shayaa, M. S., Dabiah, A. T., Alfridi, J. S., & Alsanhani, A. N. (2025). Adoption of Sustainable Beekeeping Practices Among Rural Women in Hail Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Implications for Agricultural Extension. Sustainability, 17(9), 4186. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094186

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop