IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bcp/journl/v9y2025issue-2p2964-2973.html

Challenges to Adoption and Sustained Use of Modern Bee Hives in Kitui County, Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Kiingwa Kiiti

    (Department of Geography, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Kenyatta University. P.O. Kitui.)

  • Muiruri Philomena

    (Department of Geography Kenyatta University. School of Humanities and social sciences Kenyatta University)

  • Protas Fwamba Khaemba

    (Department of Geography, Oginga Odinga University, Kenya.)

Abstract

In Kenya, beekeeping is a feasible livelihood diversification economic activity especially in the arid and semi-arid regions facing substantial rainfall variability since beekeeping is not fully depended on rainfall amounts and distribution. However, most of the beekeepers in Kenya use the traditional log hive which is less productive. Therefore, beekeeping is yet to improve the socio-economic welfare of most farmers. Traditional log hives produce honey of low quality and quantity. Failure to adopt the modern bee hives suggests existence of challenges limiting the adoption. The main objective of this study was to determine the challenges to adoption and sustained use of modern bee hives in Kitui county, Kenya. During the study a total of 110 beekeepers (42 adopters and 68 non-adopters) from the five selected locations of Mwingi Central subcounty namely; Waita, Nuu, Kivou, Mwingi and Mui were administered with questionnaires. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Version 20) was employed in data analysis. Based on Chi-square statistics the study proved the hypothesized challenges; unavailability of modern bee hives, unsuitability to local bees and lack of skills in modern beekeeping as statistically significant challenges to adoption of modern bee hives. On challenges to sustained use of modern bee hives, marketing, absconding of bees and drought were found significant. It was concluded that the challenges were limiting the adoption and sustained use of modern bee hives. The study recommends; establishment of more honey collection centres in rural areas, construction of more earth dams by county government and more modern beekeeping training organized by county government to train beekeepers on modern apiculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Kiingwa Kiiti & Muiruri Philomena & Protas Fwamba Khaemba, 2025. "Challenges to Adoption and Sustained Use of Modern Bee Hives in Kitui County, Kenya," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 9(2), pages 2964-2973, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:bcp:journl:v:9:y:2025:issue-2:p:2964-2973
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/Digital-Library/volume-9-issue-2/2964-2973.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/articles/challenges-to-adoption-and-sustained-use-of-modern-bee-hives-in-kitui-county-kenya/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Diederen & Hans Van Meijl & Arjan Wolters & Katarzyna Bijak, 2003. "Innovation adoption in agriculture : innovators, early adopters and laggards," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 67, pages 29-50.
    2. Thomas Carroll & Jim Kinsella, 2013. "Livelihood improvement and smallholder beekeeping in Kenya: the unrealised potential," Development in Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 332-345.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brown, Philip & Roper, Simon, 2017. "Innovation and networks in New Zealand farming," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 61(3), July.
    2. Läpple, Doris & Renwick, Alan & Thorne, Fiona, 2015. "Measuring and understanding the drivers of agricultural innovation: Evidence from Ireland," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-8.
    3. Tabe-Ojong, Martin Paul Jr., 2023. "Action against invasive species: Charcoal production, beekeeping, and Prosopis eradication in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    4. Beatrice Dingha & Leah Sandler & Arnab Bhowmik & Clement Akotsen-Mensah & Louis Jackai & Kevin Gibson & Ronald Turco, 2019. "Industrial Hemp Knowledge and Interest among North Carolina Organic Farmers in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, May.
    5. repec:zib:zbmahj:v:5:y:2025:i:1:p:33-35 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Ronaldo Tavares Souza, 2020. "Box-scheme as alternative food network—the economic integration between consumers and producers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 8(1), pages 1-25, December.
    7. Reich, Charlotte & Wahbi, Annkathrin & Bruns, Selina & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2025. "It's a man's world: Exploring women's aspirations for income opportunities in Indonesian oil palm villages," DARE Discussion Papers 2502, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    8. Micheels, Eric T. & Nolan, James F., 2016. "Examining the effects of absorptive capacity and social capital on the adoption of agricultural innovations: A Canadian Prairie case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 127-138.
    9. Kariyasa, Ketut & Dewi, Yovita Anggita, 2013. "Analysis Of Factors Affecting Adoption Of Integrated Crop Management Farmer Field School (Icm-Ffs) In Swampy Areas," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 1(2), pages 1-10, October.
    10. Unay Gailhard, ilkay & Bavorova, Miroslava, 2014. "Innovation at Rural Enterprises: Results from a Survey of German Organic and Conventional Farmers," MPRA Paper 58331, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Mai, Nhat Chi, 2022. "Rubber In French Indochina," OSF Preprints yzdp6, Center for Open Science.
    12. Ruchie Pathak & Nicholas R. Magliocca, 2022. "Assessing the Representativeness of Irrigation Adoption Studies: A Meta-Study of Global Research," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-31, December.
    13. Kwanele Ngwenya & Martin K. Luckert & Sandeep Mohapatra, 2025. "Gendered determinants of adaptation in growing maize in smallholder agriculture in East Africa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 1905-1932, January.
    14. Jean-Marc Blazy & M’hand Fares & Alban Thomas, 2025. "Are less polluting and synergistic farming technologies complementary?," Post-Print hal-05008165, HAL.
    15. Areal, Francisco J. & Riesgo, Laura & Gómez-Barbero, Manuel & Rodríguez-Cerezo, Emilio, 2012. "Consequences of a coexistence policy on the adoption of GMHT crops in the European Union," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 401-411.
    16. Doris Läpple & Thia Hennessy, 2015. "Exploring the Role of Incentives in Agricultural Extension Programs," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 403-417.
    17. Albert Moerkerken & Julia Blasch & Pieter Beukering & Erik Well, 2020. "A new approach to explain farmers’ adoption of climate change mitigation measures," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 141-161, March.
    18. Tzemi, Domna & Breen, James P., 2016. "Examining Irish farmers’ awareness of climate change and the factors affecting the adoption of an advisory tool for the reduction of GHG emissions," 90th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2016, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 236331, Agricultural Economics Society.
    19. Worden, David & Hailu, Getu, 2020. "Do genomic innovations enable an economic and environmental win-win in dairy production?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    20. Yari Vecchio & Giulio Paolo Agnusdei & Pier Paolo Miglietta & Fabian Capitanio, 2020. "Adoption of Precision Farming Tools: The Case of Italian Farmers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-16, January.
    21. García-Granero, Eva M. & Piedra-Muñoz, Laura & Galdeano-Gómez, Emilio, 2020. "Measuring eco-innovation dimensions: The role of environmental corporate culture and commercial orientation," MPRA Paper 119909, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bcp:journl:v:9:y:2025:issue-2:p:2964-2973. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dr. Pawan Verma (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.