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

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].

$$n={\displaystyle \frac{n\ast p(1-p)}{\left[n-1\left(\frac{d^2}{z^2}\right)\right]+p(1-p)}}$$

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. Socioeconomic characteristics of respondents (n = 92).

Variables	Frequency	%
Age
Less than 37 years	37	40.2
From 37 to 53 years	49	53.3
More than 53 years	3	3.3
Did not respond	3	3.3
Educational Level
Illiterate	4	4.3
Basic education	30	32.6
University education	58	63.0
Occupation
Full-time beekeeping	29	31.5
Processing industries	14	15.2
Beekeeping and processing industries	47	51.1
Did not respond	2	2.2
Primary Job
Government employee	7	7.6
Private sector employee	2	2.2
Retired	5	5.4
Full-time beekeeping and honey production	72	78.3
Did not respond	6	6.5
Is Beekeeping Your Primary Source of Income?
Yes	50	54.3
No	42	45.7
Purpose of the Beekeeping
For trade and additional income	54	58.7
For self-sufficiency	8	8.7
As a hobby	29	31.5
Did not respond	1	1.1
Monthly Income from Beekeeping
Less than SAR 5000	74	80.4
From SAR 5000 to less than SAR 10,000	11	12.0
From SAR 10,000 to less than SAR 15,000	2	2.2
Did not respond	5	5.4
Experience in Beekeeping
2 years or less	52	56.5
Up to 6 years	29	31.5
More than 10 years	10	10.9
Did not respond	1	1.1
Land Ownership Type
Protected areas	5	5.4
Private farm	24	26.1
Valleys	23	25.0
Pastures	34	37.0
Did not respond	6	6.5
Do You Have a Beekeeping Practice Certificate?
No	26	28.3
No, I do not update it regularly	5	5.4
Yes	60	65.2
Did not respond	1	1.1
Type of Beehives Used
Traditional hives (stick hives)	14	15.2
Modern hives (langstroth hives)	73	79.3
Did not respond	5	5.4
Number of Beehives
100 hives or less	72	78.3
More than 100 hives	15	16.3
Did not respond	5	5.4
Annual Honey Production
1000 kg or less	77	83.7
More than 1000 kg	8	8.7
Did not respond	7	7.6

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. Source of information (n = 92).

	N	Very Low	Low	Medium	High	Very High	Mean ± SD	Rank
Specialized Agricultural Websites	85	4.3	2.2	21.7	26.1	38.0	3.99 ± 1.086	1st
Interested Peers	87	6.5	4.3	18.5	23.9	41.3	3.94 ± 1.204	2nd
Traditional Beekeeping and Honey Production	88	8.7	3.3	22.8	25.0	35.9	3.80 ± 1.243	3rd
Scientific Extension Bulletins	87	7.6	6.5	29.3	26.1	25.0	3.57 ± 1.187	4th
Social Media Influencers	85	8.7	7.6	28.3	21.7	26.1	3.53 ± 1.250	5th
Agricultural Guide	84	7.6	7.6	37.0	18.5	20.7	3.40 ± 1.173	6th
Saudi Food and Drug Authority	84	5.4	14.1	29.3	23.9	18.5	3.39 ± 1.151	7th
Your Agricultural Guide Account	85	9.8	12.0	27.2	26.1	17.4	3.32 ± 1.227	8th
Universities	84	15.2	16.3	29.3	19.6	10.9	2.94 ± 1.245	9th

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. The need for professional guidance among rural women (n = 92).

Phrases	n	Very Low	Low	Medium	High	Very High	Mean ± SD	Rank
Productivity Efficiency and Honey Quality	86	3.3	3.3	15.2	26.1	45.7	6 ± 4.15	1st
Production Safety	85	5.4	4.3	10.9	22.8	48.9	7 ± 4.14	2nd
Modern Beekeeping Practices	85	4.3	5.4	17.4	27.2	38.0	7 ± 3.96	3rd
Bee Protection from Diseases and Poisoning	85	4.3	5.4	21.7	25.0	35.9	7 ± 3.89	4th
Processing Industries	87	4.3	5.4	29.3	19.6	35.9	5 ± 3.82	5th

Summated mean = 22.7; SD = 6.6; range = 25; low = 5; high = 30; and item mean = 4.54.

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. Beekeepers’ satisfaction level with extension services (n = 92).

Items	N	Very Low	Low	Medium	High	Very High	Mean ± SD	Rank
Awareness Campaigns and Agricultural Extension Caravans	86	5.4	16.3	17.4	22.8	31.5	3.63 ± 1.275	1st
Training Courses	84	8.7	12.0	20.7	21.7	28.3	3.54 ± 1.312	2nd
Extension Seminars and Workshops	86	9.8	10.9	22.8	22.8	27.2	3.50 ± 1.308	3rd
Administrative and Support Services	85	9.8	18.5	15.2	23.9	25.0	3.39 ± 1.355	4th
Support for Small-Scale Women Investors	85	13.0	16.3	16.3	21.7	25.0	3.32 ± 1.408	5th
Support for Processed Agricultural Product Manufacturing	86	15.2	15.2	16.3	19.6	27.2	3.30 ± 1.456	6th

Summated mean = 20.5; SD = 7.54; range = 25; low = 6; high = 30; and item mean = 3.41.

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. Beekeepers’ attitudes toward provided extension services (n = 92).

Items	N	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree	Mean ± SD	Rank
The Reef Program is beneficial and well directed in supporting beekeepers.	87	5.4	3.3	9.8	35.9	40.2	4.08 ± 1.091	1st
The provided programs have helped empower you for success.	86	3.3	5.4	12.0	40.2	32.6	4.00 ± 1.017	2nd
Has the program contributed to increasing the knowledge level of female beekeepers?	86	4.3	6.5	6.5	45.7	30.4	3.98 ± 1.051	3rd
Did the program fulfill beekeepers’ needs?	86	4.3	5.4	9.8	44.6	29.3	3.95 ± 1.039	4th
Has the financial support from the Reef Program helped improve product quality?	87	4.3	7.6	16.3	32.6	33.7	3.89 ± 1.125	5th
It improves marketing skills.	86	4.3	7.6	12.0	43.5	26.1	3.85 ± 1.068	6th
It increases the administrative awareness of program participants.	86	4.3	6.5	15.2	41.3	26.1	3.84 ± 1.061	7th
There is effectiveness in the institutions that adopt ideas and development, including the Rural Development Program.	87	5.4	12.0	16.3	37.0	23.9	3.66 ± 1.160	8th

Summated mean = 30; SD = 8.4; range = 35; low = 5; high = 40; and item mean = 3.75.

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. Processing industries of beekeeping products (n = 92).

Items	N	Not Possible	Medium	Good	Very High	Mean ± SD	Rank
Body Care Products	83	7.6	15.2	22.8	43.5	3.15 ± 0.99	1st
Cosmetic Products	83	8.7	17.4	20.7	43.5	3.13 ± 0.99	2nd
Honeycomb Honey	77	5.4	17.4	23.9	37.0	3.10 ± 0.95	3rd
Face Care Products	83	7.6	15.2	22.8	43.5	3.10 ± 1.03	4th
Pollen Grains	79	5.4	20.7	21.7	38.0	3.08 ± 0.97	5th
Soap	83	8.7	15.2	27.2	39.1	3.07 ± 0.99	6th
Traditional Honey	78	10.9	15.2	17.4	41.3	3.05 ± 1.09	7th
Medical Products	80	13.0	16.3	21.7	35.9	2.93 ± 1.10	8th
Propolis	79	16.3	28.3	18.5	22.8	2.56 ± 1.08	9th
Royal Jelly	77	27.2	16.3	17.4	22.8	2.43 ± 1.20	10th

Summated mean = 28.25; SD = 8.48; range = 34; low = 6; high = 40; and item mean = 2.8.

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. Adoption of sustainable beekeeping practices among beekeepers (n = 92).

Items	N	Not at All	Rarely	Sometimes	Often	All the Time	Mean ± SD	Rank
Scientific methods are followed to protect bees from poisoning and pesticides	86	1.1	14.1	27.2	51.1	0	4.36 ± 0.82	1st
Pesticide poisoning detection and ways to avoid it	85	1.1	1.1	14.1	25.0	51.1	4.34 ± 0.86	2nd
Knowledge of dealing with apiaries during dust storms or rain storms	86	1.1	2.2	12.0	27.2	51.1	4.34 ± 0.87	3rd
Pests and enemies of bees are diagnosed periodically	85	1.1	1.1	12.0	30.4	47.8	4.33 ± 0.83	4th
Know the types of trees surrounding the environment and their flowering seasons	85	1.1	1.1	13.0	29.3	47.8	4.32 ± 0.84	5th
Know the natural environment that harms bees as places where contaminated water and waste collect	85	2.2	15.2	23.9	51.1	0	4.32 ± 0.91	6th
Bees are examined in periodic ways to detect diseases and viruses	86	1.1	17.4	25.0	50.0		4.31 ± 0.85	7th
Do you have full knowledge of the life cycle of members of the bee sect?	87	2.2	3.3	15.2	23.9	50.0	4.23 ± 0.99	8th
	83	2.2	1.1	16.3	25.0	45.7	4.23 ± 0.95	9th
Care is paid to the health of bees and the examination of the denominations elected for breeding	86	2.2	1.1	17.4	26.1	46.7	4.22 ± 0.95	10th
The examination and detection of the dream of Farao and knowledge of the methods of treatment	85	1.1	3.3	17.4	23.9	46.7	4.21 ± 0.95	11th
Nosema is detected, controlled, and methods of treatment are known	85	1.1	4.3	17.4	27.2	42.4	4.14 ± 0.96	12th
Breeding behavior and protection from diseases and pests	85	1.1	4.3	18.5	26.1	42.4	4.13 ± 0.97	13th
Methods are used to address nutritional deficiencies for hives and bees	85	2.2	3.3	21.7	21.7	43.5	4.09 ± 1.03	14th
Knowledge of nature reserves provides accommodation for cells	85	1.1	4.3	20.7	27.2	39.1	4.07 ± 0.97	15th
Other causes that weaken the sects are identified as protein deficiency, carbohydrate deficiency, and queens’ failure	85	1.1	3.3	19.6	32.6	35.9	4.07 ± 0.92	16th
Scientific methods are followed in the selection, production, and breeding of queen bees	85	3.3	2.2	17.4	32.6	37.0	4.06 ± 1.00	17th
Manufacture beeswax	84	5.4	4.3	18.5	26.1	37.0	3.93 ± 1.15	18th
The joinery of wooden beehives	84	6.5	8.7	18.5	25.0	32.6	3.75 ± 1.24	19th

Summated mean = 77.73; SD = 16.34; range = 83; low = 12; high = 95; and item mean = 4.09.

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. Spearman’s rank-order correlation analysis (n = 92).

Independent Variables	Dependent Variables
	Beekeepers’ Satisfaction with Extension Services	Beekeepers’ Attitudes Toward Extension Services	Adoption of Sustainable Beekeeping Practices Among Beekeepers
Age	−0.330 **	−0.151	0.111
Education	0.247 *	0.161	−0.121
Experience of beekeeping	−0.147	−0.154	−0.011
Primary job	−0.088	−0.070	0.066
Extension services regarding beekeeping	−0.128	−0.241 *	−0.013
Beekeepers’ satisfaction with extension services	1.00	0.497 **	0.143

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

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.