
































Microsoft Word - 113-Manuscript-1431-1-11-20210624.docx


Gikunda et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 2, Issue 2, 2021 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Raphael Mwiti Gikunda, Lecturer, Chuka University, Box 109-60400, Chuka, Kenya, rgikunda@chuka.ac.ke,   

 https://orcid.org/0000--0000-0000-0000  
2. Dennis Mongáre Ooga, Doctoral Student, Chuka University, Box 109-60400, Chuka, Kenya, dennisooga2013@gmail.com, 

 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9204-143X   
3. Irene Nyanchoka Okiamba, Masters Student, Chuka University, Box 109-60400, Chuka, Kenya, ironyanchoka@gmail.com, 

 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1755-4870   
4. Samantha Anyuor, Graduate Assistant, Chuka University, Box 109-60400, Chuka, Kenya, anyuorsamantha@gmail.com,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9289-5977  

73 
 

Cultural Barriers Toward Women and Youth Entry to 
Apiculture Production in Maara Sub-County, Kenya 

 
R. Gikunda1, D. Ooga2, I. Okiamba3, S. Anyuor4 

 
 

  

Abstract 

The study adds to extension education knowledge by revealing cultural barriers inhibiting the uptake 
of apiculture enterprises among women and youths. Data were gathered through a structured 
interview schedule from 23 smallholder farmers selected through purposive sampling based on 
gender and age. The study revealed that women and youths’ participation in apiculture was hindered 
by cultural restrictions such as taboos, inheritance, traditions, and attitudes. The taboos inhibiting 
women from engaging in apicultural production were forbidding them from climbing trees, sitting 
beehives in apiaries, and honey harvesting. Traditions such as the belief that apiculture is meant for 
elderly men discouraged youths and women entrance to the industry. Only interested and older sons 
from the farm families could inherit apiaries. A majority of female and young farmers did not 
participate in apiculture due to the negative attitude they had toward the enterprise. Apprenticeship 
was the main channel of equipping farmers with apicultural knowledge, and skills. A few farmers also 
acquired knowledge through formal schooling, personal experiences, and social gathering. Cultural 
restrictions need to be eased to attract women and young farmers to apiculture production. 
Extension education could enhance the adoption of the enterprise.  
 
 
 

Keywords 

Apprenticeship, culture, extension education, indigenous knowledge 



Gikunda et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.113   74 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
The apicultural subsector is rapidly growing as a result of the rising beehive nutraceutical 
products in local, regional, and international markets (Zoccali et al., 2017). Apiculture 
production involves the management of domesticated and wild honeybees for the production 
of honey, wax, propolis, royal jelly, and venom (Chemwok et al., 2019). Global honey 
production is estimated to be more than 1.4 million tonnes annually (Karpati et al., 2009). The 
European Union (EU) produces about 22% of the world’s production of honey; and is the 
second-largest producer after China (European Commission, 2020). Ethiopia is the leading 
producer of honey and beeswax in Africa (Frikru, 2015). Other African countries that produce 
substantial amounts of honey include South Africa, Zambia, Egypt, and Guinea (African Union 
[AU], 2019). 
 
Apiculture is a male-dominated industry in Kenya largely because of cultural norms, the nature 
of management, and attitudes toward bees (Heckle et al., 2018; Mburu, 2015). As noted by 
Caroll and Kinsella (2013), although most parts of Kenya are suitable for apiculture production, 
the potential has not been fully tapped. This is due to numerous impediments, including bee ill 
health; inadequate supportive policies, technical advice, and marketing structures (AU, 2019); 
recurrent drought, deforestation (Wambua et al., 2016), and stress arising from wind, livestock, 
wildlife, and vandals among other challenges (Honey Bee Health Coalition, 2019). Culture has 
also been cited as the main hindrance to women and youth engagement in apicultural activities 
(Mwakatobe, Ntalwila, Kohi, Kipemba, & Mrisha, 2016). However, little empirical data exists on 
cultural barriers that prevents women and young farmers from participating in the industry, 
particularly in high potential areas such as Maara Sub-county. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
We theorized that culture is an essential element in the adoption of apicultural practices. 
Culture is the way of life of the people (Sibani, 2018); a component of the society that embraces 
a range of elements, including language, economy, religion, customs, traditions, values, 
attitudes, education, and manners, among others (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997). 
Customs, taboos, traditions, and inheritance are cultural elements that have been thought to 
be a deterrent to women and youth entry to apiculture production, as illustrated in Figure 1. 
Although a majority of beekeepers are young people in countries such as India (Verma et al., 
2018), Kenyan cultural norms make it difficult for the youth to venture into the industry. 
The existence of customary inheritance practices in most communities in Kenya that favours 
males over females prevents women from participating in agricultural activities such as bee 
farming (Mwakatobe et al., 2016). In most cases, indigenous apicultural knowledge and hives 
are passed on to adult sons by the fathers at old age. In many cultures, women have been 
viewed as not suitable for physically demanding roles such as harvesting and placing log hives in 
tall trees. Climbing trees and handling bees are regarded as taboos in most Kenyan sub-cultures 
(Anoliefo et al., 2015). 
 



Gikunda et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.113   75 
 

Figure 1 

Conceptual Framework  

 
 

Purpose 
 
The study was undertaken to generate information that would broaden the understanding of 
the factors that dissuaded women and young farmers from participating in apiculture 
production in Maara Sub-county of Kenya. 
 
Two research objectives guided the study: 
1. Identify cultural barriers preventing women and youth from participating in apiculture 

production;  
2. Describe ways by which farmers acquired knowledge and skills regarding apiculture 
 

Methods 
 
The research was conducted in May 2020 at Maara Sub-county to document the cultural 
impediments to youth and women's entrance to apicultural production. Maara Sub-county is 
known for traditional apiculture production, although immense opportunities exist for the 
growth of the industry following the planned construction of a honey refinery. The area is 
endowed with a variety of rangelands and vegetation cover that favors apicultural activities 
(Tharaka Nithi County Government, 2018). The study sample was comprised of 23 smallholder 
farmers, where five were youths, 17 were men, and six were women. The sample was 
considered adequate as recommended by Creswell (2012), although Glaser and Strauss (1967) 
observed that the appropriateness of qualitative sample sizes is dependent on data saturation. 
The selection of the study site and participants was made purposively based on their gender 
and age. The selection was made with the help of a graduate assistant at Chuka University who 
had previously undertaken his masters’ degree project in the target area. It is essential to 
disclose the researchers’ roles, experiences, and biases in a qualitative study (Minus et al., 
2021). Therefore, the research was undertaken by a graduate assistant at Chuka University with 
close supervision by the principal researcher (Faculty). The other researchers were a faculty and 
a graduate assistant at the university. 

 

 

 

 

 
 

Young 
farmers 

Women 
farmers 

Cultural barriers 
• Customs  
• Traditions  
• Taboo 
• Inheritance  

 

Hindering 

Apiculture 
industry 
• Bee farming 

 

Entry 



Gikunda et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.113   76 
 

Data Collection and Analysis 
Primary data were collected from the respondents through the use of an interview schedule 
and observation. Mobile telephones were utilized to record data. The interviews were guided 
by a schedule that was comprised of five key questions. The questions addressed cultural 
factors hindering youth and women entrance to apiculture production. The study involved 
traditional and modern beekeepers as well as males and females to maximize the diversity of 
information and improve transferability of the study’s results. Data were triangulated by 
corroborating information from the three categories of respondents’ namely household heads, 
youth, and women. 
 
A comprehensive description of the data collection, analysis procedures, and context within 
which the study was conducted ensured dependability and confirmability of the study. In 
addition, member checking was undertaken to double check the accuracy of the collected data. 
The one-to-one interviews took place at participants’ farms to allow for observation of 
apicultural practices (Ryan, Coughlan, & Cronin, 2009). The instrument for data collection was 
comprised of five open-ended questions addressing cultural barriers to women and youth 
participation, and the acquisition of apicultural indigenous knowledge (IDK). Audio recordings 
were transcribed and then data were subjected to open coding to identify the themes 
(Creswell, 2012). Prior to interpretation, patterns and relationships between themes were 
identified. 

Findings 
 
On data analysis, four themes emerged; cultural barriers (CB), acquisition of knowledge (AK), 
enterprise inheritance (EI), and apicultural production systems (APS).  
 
Cultural Barriers Impeding Youth and Women Entrance in Apiculture Production 
The study’s first objective sought to describe the cultural barriers hindering youth and women 
from participating in apiculture production. The results indicated that taboos, inheritance 
practices, traditions, and attitudes denied women and youths a chance to participate in 
apiculture production.  
 
Taboos 
It was difficult for women to participate in apicultural activities due to the taboos associated 
with the practices. A majority of the respondents stated that it was taboo for a woman to climb 
a tree and an abominable act to handle bees. A claim was put forth by one of the senior male 
beekeepers who stated: “According to Ameru culture, women are not allowed to climb on trees, 
and so they cannot place hives on trees.” A majority of farmers in the area practiced traditional 
bee farming involving log-hives that are placed on tall trees, out of reach of women apiarist. 
This makes it difficult for women to perform such activities as sitting beehives on trees and 
honey harvesting. A study conducted by Mburu et al. (2015) in Kitui, Kenya also indicated that 
women’s participation in apiary activities faced cultural constraints such as taboos. However, 
the execution of apicultural activities is becoming easier with the introduction of box hives that 



Gikunda et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.113   77 
 

are not necessary placed in tall trees in addition to other modern technologies (Heckle et al., 
2018). 
 
The results further indicated that youths and women were not allowed to handle bees due to 
their engagement in sexual activities. It was unacceptable to even the senior beekeepers to 
sleep with their wives while undertaking apiculture management practices such as honey 
harvesting and placement of hives in an apiary. This was reported by a respondent who stated 
that the “Ameru customs stipulated that a beekeeper would not ‘sleep’ with his wife prior to 
sitting a beehive in an apiary and since youths could not wait for months without making love 
with their wives, they would not practice beekeeping.” Traditional apiculture production was a 
male domain as it involved the rearing of African bees (Apis millifera), which are known to be 
very aggressive, and thus, could not be managed by women. Certain apiculture practices were 
meant for men as dictated by the customs, time, and circumstance of execution. This emerged 
from a respondent who pointed out that “some apicultural activities such as honey harvesting 
were undertaken at night by men in their birthday suit [nude].” This is a clear indication that 
traditional apiary was a no-go-zone for women and even young people hence discouraging 
them from participating. The findings corroborated those of the previous studies (Chemwok et 
al., 2019; Ogaba & Akongo, 2001). 
 
Traditions 
One of the senior beekeepers reported that “old men do not allow women and sons to own 
beehives because they believe that beehives belong to men only.” “Moreover, women are 
considered as being incapable of beekeeping.” This claim emerged from a majority of the 
respondents, with one of the male beekeepers stating that “women cannot climb trees” and 
others indicating that “women do not know how to attract bees so as to get them into a 
beehive.” Even though research has shown that beekeeping is a less land-demanding enterprise 
(King, 2013), a majority of the youths and women do not own land due to cultural restrictions 
(FAO, 2017). As such, they would not engage in deciding the kind of agricultural activities to be 
practiced in their households. Our results showed that “women and youth lack space for the 
location of an apiary.” The area's customs restrict women's land inheritance and would only 
allow male children to acquire land as soon as they become adults. The lack of access to basic 
production resources among women and youths threatened their entrance to apiculture. 
 
Owing to the fact that most farmers in the area reared an aggressive species of bees, it was 
only reasonable for them to harvest honey at night, among other apicultural practices, so as to 
manage bee stings. It is for this reason that one of the respondents noted that bees and honey 
handling were done at night by senior men. “Traditionally, it was only men who were allowed to 
do beekeeping, and most apiary activities were conducted at night, and men would go out in 
‘birthday suit.’ Women and children were not allowed to participate.” This has been a tradition 
in many communities in Kenya and is practiced even today (Chemwok et al., 2019).  
 
The community, similar to many other African communities, has well-defined gender roles 
(Davis & Negash, 2007). Women are culturally expected to perform household chores and leave 
hard farm roles to their husbands. Apiculture production is one of those enterprises designated 



Gikunda et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.113   78 
 

for men, as reported by one of the respondents. “According to Ameru culture, women were not 
allowed to participate in beekeeping. They were required to perform such duties as cooking 
food, porridge, tilling land, and taking care of homes. Apiary management practices were 
regarded as men’s activities.” The perception is corroborated by a finding by Miriti et al. (2019) 
that bee farming enterprises have been dominated by elderly men over decades. However, 
with the changes being witnessed worldwide geared toward women’s empowerment, women 
are gradually participating in modern apiculture, which has eased beekeeping management due 
to the associated technologies (Mburu et al., 2015).  
 
Attitudes 
A majority of the respondents stated that bee phobia is a major setback to women’s 
participation in bee farming, as pointed out by one of the women farmers that “women fear 
bee sting.” It also emerged from one respondent that “women believed that apicultural 
enterprise is meant for men” because “women cannot climb on trees to harvest honey.” 
Women’s and youths’ participation was also challenged by the declining security in the area. 
One of the respondents noted that “some people steal honey from beehives especially if the 
apiary is sited far away from the farmer’s residence hence, a disincentive to beekeeping.” Many 
of the senior men in the community were able to secure beehives as opposed to women and 
youth. To many women, apiculture production was a challenging enterprise due to the 
associated practices such as the construction of beehives. “Beekeeping involves hard work, 
especially when sculpturing traditional hives,” as pointed out by a young farmer. Another 
farmer cited a lack of interest among women and young farmers, stating that “women and 
youths were not interested in beekeeping.” This contradicts an observation made by Mburu et 
al. (2015), who found that women were interested in the production and sale of apicultural 
products,a situation that may have been due to the adoption of modern apicultural practices 
and cultural dilution. The two factors have resulted in a gradual rise in female participation in 
apiary activities as aided by the modernization of the industry, according to Mburu et al. (2015).  
 
A majority of the youths do not value apiculture similar to other agricultural enterprises, as 
reported by a senior beekeeper who stated that “youths view beekeeping as a trivial job.” A 
claim substantiated by Mungai and Ogot (2012), who observed that the youths’ social 
backgrounds, which is influenced their cultural practices and beliefs, drove their attitudes 
toward the enterprise. Most of the senior farmers in the area kept bees for cultural uses and 
not as a business enterprise. Honey harvested out of the traditional apiculture was mainly used 
for paying dowry during marriages and brewing traditional beer. This dilutes the value of the 
enterprise and drives the youths away from the industry. The result is in line with the finding of 
Gangwar and Kameswari (2016) that a positive attitude towards agricultural enterprises is key 
to participation. A respondent revealed that “youths do not participate in beekeeping because it 
is tiresome in sculpturing hives, and they prefer white-collar jobs. They prefer new technology 
which has held them up like ‘prisoners. Therefore, they lack knowledge on beekeeping.” Before 
the introduction of the box hives (modern hives), nearly every beekeeper was using the log 
hives, which not so many young farmers knew how to construct. Hence, a deterrence to many 
young men and women who may have wanted to engage in bee farming. 
 



Gikunda et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.113   79 
 

Inheritance Practices 
The results indicated that most hives had been inherited by men who showed interest in 
apiculture and whose commitment had impressed elderly males in their community. This was 
explained by a young respondent that most beekeepers particularly, men do not consider 
women to be beekeepers or to own any beehive, and a good man will identify his son as the one 
who will inherit beehives; send him to harvest honey on father’s behalf when the father is no 
longer active in beekeeping activities. Old men do not allow women or younger sons to own any 
beehive because they believe that beehives belonged to old men only. The argument was 
emphasized by another respondent who stated that “over generations, women and youth were 
not allowed to participate in beekeeping. It was mainly undertaken by old men.” It is clear from 
the results that women and youths could not inherit apiaries in most households hence 
preventing them from engaging in apicultural activities. This may have accounted for the 
negative attitude the groups had toward the enterprise. 
 
Prior to the apiary inheritance, the inheritee would be equipped with the necessary skills and 
knowledge needed for bee management. It also emerged that young people were not allowed 
to handle honey as described by a respondent who indicated that “youths were not allowed to 
take honey that was prepared through traditional methods, they could start fights because it 
was believed that the honey is dangerous especially to youths.” The fact that young people 
were not permitted to handle honey likely discouraged them from venturing into apiculture 
production. In many communities in Kenya, beekeeping is an enterprise that is mainly passed 
on to sons by their fathers at old age (Caroll & Kinsella, 2013). 
 
Acquisition of Knowledge and Skills for Apicultural Production 
Objective two sought to describe ways through which beekeepers acquired knowledge and 
skills for beekeeping. It was reported that apicultural knowledge and skills were mainly 
acquired through modes of informal and formal learning. 
 
Informal Learning 
The informal modes of knowledge acquisition included apprenticeship, social gatherings, and 
the internet. Among the informal modes learning by practice and observation was the most 
commonly utilized mode of learning.  
 
 Apprenticeship. The results indicated that a majority of the beekeepers in the area 
acquired apicultural skills and knowledge through observations. The inheritees could 
accompany the senior men during visits to the apiaries and observe the apicultural practices 
before succeeding them (Adams, 2018). Many of the beekeepers acquired the skill from their 
fathers while others inherited apicultural knowledge from their grandparents, as explained by 
two respondents: “I learnt beekeeping skills through accompanying father in apiculture 
production, had taste of honey which is sweet and encouraged me to start beekeeping.” “I 
learnt beekeeping skills from our grandfather, accompanied grandfather in setting hives on 
trees and harvesting of honey.” To many farmers in the Maara community, apiculture 
production is an enterprise that is passed on from generation to generation by the male family 
members.  



Gikunda et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.113   80 
 

Further, the acquisition of apicultural knowledge was entirely a family affair involving either 
members of the nuclear or extended families. Among the skills and knowledge acquired 
through apprenticeship were siting an apiary, attracting bees to the beehives, feeding bees, 
honey harvesting, and constructing hives. This implied that many of the beekeepers were 
utilizing indigenous knowledge to sustain the traditionally managed apiaries. This suggests the 
need for extension education to promote the uptake of modern technologies that could boost 
the productivity of the apiaries. The findings corroborate what was observed by Heckle et al. 
(2018), who found that apprenticeship is the main pathway for the transmission of traditional 
apicultural knowledge and skills. 
 
 Social Gathering and the Internet. Apicultural knowledge and skills were also acquired 
through other informal modes, including personal experiences, the internet, and social 
interactions. Among the informal modes was interaction within informal social groups, as 
suggested by a respondent who stated: “I acquired beekeeping knowledge from a certain social 
group. The knowledge covered attracting bees to hives, harvesting of honey, and the 
importance of nectar in apiculture production.” A social group can provide a platform for 
interactive learning among individuals, as observed by Franz et al. (2010). The results also 
indicated that some farmers gained apicultural knowledge through personal initiatives involving 
the use of the internet, as claimed by one respondent who confirmed acquiring knowledge 
from social media. “I learnt apiculture production on social media.” It has been demonstrated 
through research that the internet has revolutionized the way some farmers access relevant 
information (Chisita, 2010). However, this mode of knowledge transmission is not common in 
the community owing to the fact that not so many farmers, particularly the elderly group that 
constitutes the majority, are well versed with using the internet. 
 
When asked to indicate how they planned to share apicultural knowledge with other farmers, 
one of the respondents explained that “I will print out handouts on apiculture production and 
put them up at strategic locations like cyber cafes where farmers who have interest can access 
them and learn about apiculture.” This is a clear demonstration of the level of willingness of 
some farmers to share apicultural knowledge with others to increase bee products including 
honey production in the area. Yang (2015) and Šūmane et al. (2018) indicated that informal 
channels such as social gatherings, including social media platforms among other forums are 
valuable avenues that can be tapped to share knowledge. As such, they could be used to boost 
the dissemination of apicultural practices as supported by our results. 
 
Formal Learning 
Other than informal modes of acquiring knowledge, a few beekeepers acknowledged gaining 
apicultural knowledge through formal processes. A formal learning environment is 
characterized by learning taking place in schools or colleges (Masara, 2010). The young 
beekeepers who may not have had a chance to culturally inherit apiaries, acquired apicultural 
skills formally. One member of that group indicated: “I learnt apiculture production at high 
school under the agriculture subject.” And another one said: “I learnt about beekeeping during 
my primary, secondary, and university education.” This implied that much of the knowledge and 
skills learned through formal schooling can be applied not only in traditional agriculture but also 



Gikunda et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.113   81 
 

in other areas such as apiculture . However, formal education may not apply to a majority of 
the beekeepers in the area studied due to their levels and opportunities for education. Most of 
the beekeepers were old men who do not have formal schooling. This perhaps, explains why 
traditional apiculture is predominant among farmers in Maara Sub-county. Most of beekeepers 
who applied formal schooling knowledge were young men and women especially those 
engaged in modern apiculture. This confirms the assertion that education is positively 
correlated with adoption of modern apicultural technologies (Bunde & Kibet, 2016). 

 
Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 

 
Apiculture production in the Maara community is mainly based on traditional practices founded 
on cultural principles. A majority of beekeepers were senior men employing inherited 
indigenous knowledge. However, modern beekeeping was also practiced particularly by women 
and young people. Traditional apiculture is primarily practiced for production of bee products 
and honey utilized for cultural reasons such as health, brewing traditional beer, and payment of 
dowries. Because plans are underway for the construction of a honey refinery, it is imperative 
that the community expands its production to meet the projected demand. Therefore, more 
women and young farmers should be encouraged to engage in the apiculture industry. A shift 
from traditional to modern apiculture would also help to address the expected demand. This 
could be achieved through a spirited effort towards the dissemination of apicultural 
technologies involving extension agents, farmers, and other stakeholders.  
 
Even though there is a need exists for more farmers to participate in apiculture production, 
women and young farmers entrance is faces numerous cultural restrictions. The cultural 
barriers include taboos, traditions, attitudes, and inheritance practices regarding apiaries. Some 
taboos such as forbidding women to climb trees, sitting beehives in apiaries, and honey 
harvesting deter female farmers from participating in apiculture. Only senior farmers were 
allowed to inherit apiaries; young farmers, similar to women, were forbidden. Engagement in 
sexual activities common with young people and women is a taboo that also bars the groups’ 
entries to beekeeping. The community’s traditions dictate that only senior men can participate 
in apiculture. This is mainly due to the associated taboos and access to resources including land. 
 
Moreover, in traditional apiculture, most of the practices such as honey harvesting are 
undertaken at night making the activities out of reach for women and young people due to the 
fact that apiaries are often located away from the homesteads. Owing to the fact that 
traditional apiculture largely involves a very aggressive bee species, women and young farmers 
were afraid of bee stings thus discouraging them from engaging in the enterprise. Because 
modern apiaries do not need to be sited far away from the homes and in tall trees as in 
traditional apiculture, women and young people should be encouraged to participate in 
modern bee farming. Modern apiculture involves easy-to-perform practices like the use of box 
hives that can be easily be managed by women. There is need for adjusting cultural norms and 
beliefs to attract women and young people in the industry. 
 



Gikunda et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.113   82 
 

Based on findings, it is evident that indigenous knowledge acquired informally through 
apprenticeship is the main driver of apiculture production in the Maara Sub-county of Kenya. In 
addition to, apprenticeship, other informal modes of learning involved the transmission of 
apicultural knowledge and skills were social gatherings and internet primarily benefiting young 
men and women beekeepers. Only a few beekeepers had gained apicultural knowledge through 
formal schooling at primary, secondary, and/or tertiary levels. This clearly indicate the need of 
enhanced extension service provision especially to beekeepers. Because extension is now a 
devolved function in Kenya, the county extensionists should organize training programs to 
equip farmers in the community with relevant information that can spur the growth of the 
industry. Youth empowerment in the area of modern beehives construction and access to 
resources would also likely enhance the expansion of the enterprise in Maara. 

 
References 

 
Adams, E. C. (2018). How to become a beekeeper: Learning and skill in managing honeybees. 

Cultural Geographies, 25(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474016682345 
 
African Union (AU). (2019). The inaugural report on the status of apiculture in Africa 2019: 

Opportunities and strategies for development of the sector. African Union, Inter-African 
Bureau for Animal Resources.  

 
Agoba, M. R., & Akongo, T. (2001, October 28–November 1). Gender issues in beekeeping: The 

Uganda case [Conference session]. APIMODIA XXXVII International Apicultural Congress 
(ICC), Durban, South Africa. 
https://www.apimondia.com/docs/congress/2001/Papers/049.pdf  

 
Anoliefo, G. O., Nwokeji, P. A., & Ikhajiagbe, B. (2015). Influence of traditional taboo practices 

on natural resource conservation in Uli, Ihiala local government area of Anambra State 
Nigeria; Sustainable community development. Journal of Environmental Sustainability, 
4(4), 1–13. http://scholarworks.rit.edu/jes/vol4/iss4/2  

 
Bunde, A. O., & Kibet, K. (2016). Socio-economic factors influencing adoption of modern 

beekeeping technologies in Baringo County, Kenya. International Journal of Science and 
Research, 5(6), 960–969. http://doi.org/10.21275/v5i6.NOV164195  

 
Caroll, T., & Kinsella, J. (2013). Livelihood improvement and smallholder beekeeping in Kenya: 

Unrealised potential. Development in Practice, 23(3), 332–345. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2013.781123  

 
Chemwok, C. K., Tuitoek, D. K., & Nganai, S. K. (2019). Factors influencing honey production in 

Marigat, Baringo County, Kenya. International Journal of Research and Innovation in 
Social Science, 3(2), 426–434. https://www.rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/Digital-
Library/volume-3-issue-2/426-434.pdf 



Gikunda et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.113   83 
 

Chisita, T. C. (2012, May 24). Knotting and networking agricultural information services through 
Web 2.0 to create an informed farming community: A case of Zimbabwe [Conference 
session]. World Library and Information Congress: 78th IFLA General Conference and 
Assembly, Helsinki. https://conference.ifla.org/ifla78 

 
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative 

and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson 
 
Davis, K. E., & Negash, M. (2005, October 17-21). Gender, wealth, and participation in 

community groups in Meru Central Distirct, Kenya. [Conference session]. International 
Research Workshop on ‘Gender and Collective Action, Chiang Mai, Thailand. 

 
European Commission. (2020). Honey market presentation. European Union. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=European+Commission.+(2020).+Honey+market+pr
esentation.+European+Union&oq=European+Commission.+(2020).+Honey+market+pres
entation.+European+Union&aqs=chrome..69i57.1771j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 

 
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). (2017). The community land rights of the women and 

youth in Turkana County, Kenya [Policy brief]. http://www.fao.org/3/i7037e/i7037e.pdf 
 
Fikru, S. (2015). Review of bee and honey production in Ethiopia. Journal of Animal Science 

Advances, 5(10),1413–1421. https://doi.org/10.5455/jasa.20151019083635 
 
Franz, N., Piercy, F., Donaldson, J., & Richard, R. (2010). How farmers learn: Implications for 

agricultural educators. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 25(1), 37–59. 
https://egrove.olemiss.edu/jrss/vol25/iss1/4 

 
Gangwar, R., & Kameswari, V. L. (2016). Attitude of rural youth towards agriculture as a means 

of livelihood. Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 8(2), 879–882. 
https://doi.org/10.31018/jans.v8i2.890 

 
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative 

research. Transaction. http://www.sxf.uevora.pt/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/Glaser_1967.pdf  

 
Heckle, R., Smith, P., Macdiarmid, J. I., Campell, E., & Abbott, P. (2018). Beekeping adoption: A 

case study of three smallholder farming communities in Baringo County, Kenya. Journal 
of Agriculture and Rural Development in Tropics and Subtropics, 119(1), 1–11. 
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hebis:34-2018010254087  

 
Honey Bee Health Coalition. (2019). Best management practices for hive health: A guide for 

beekeepers (1st ed.). 
https://www.nmhoney.com/nmhoney/Sub_Files/Best%20Management%20Practices%2
0for%20Hive%20Health%20A%20Guide%20For%20Beekeepers.pdf 



Gikunda et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.113   84 
 

Karpati, L., Csapo, Z., & Vanyi Arvane, G. (2009, December 9–11). Innovation and rural 
development: The solution for the Hungarian beekeeping sector [Paper Presentation]. 
European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE), 113th Seminar, Belgrade, 
Serbia. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.57486   

 
King, L. E. (2013). Elephants and bees: Could honey bees be effective deterrents for Asia’s crop-

raiding elephants. Sanctuary Asia Magazine. https://elephantsandbees.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/11/King-2013-Elephants-and-Bees-in-Asia-s.pdf 

 
Masara, C. (2010). Learning commercial beekeeping: Two cases of social learning in southern 

African community natrual resources management contexts [Master’s thesis, Rhodes 
University]. South East Academic Libraries System (SEALS) Digital Commons 
http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003547 

 
Mburu, P. D. (2015). Mapping of the honey value chain and analysis of changes in gender roles 

and factors influencing women empowerment among beekeepers in Kitui county, Kenya 
[Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi]. University of Nairobi Digital Repository 
http://hdl.handle.net/11295/93509  

 
Mburu, P., Affognon, H., Irungu, P., Mburu, J., & Raina, S. (2015, July 16). Beekeeping for women 

empowerment: Case of commercial insect programme in Kitui County, Kenya [Paper 
Presentation]. International Association for Feminist Economics (IAFFE) 24th Annual 
Conference, Berlin, Germany. 
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Mburu2/publication/283727138_Beekeepi
ng_for_Women_Empowerment_Case_of_Commercial_Insect_Programme_in_Kitui_Cou
nty_Kenya/links/5645dc8508ae9f9c13e71857.pdf 

 
Minus , K., Woods , J., Roberts, R., English, C., & Rodriguez , B. (2021). Empowering the 

caregiver network of farmers with a disability: A case study of the North Carolina 
AgrAbility project. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 2(1), 95-106. 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.99  

 
Miriti, L., Masiga, C., Wamue, N., & Maina, I. (2019). Gender gaps in the levels of participation in 

improved bee keeping: Case of the Maasai community in Trans Mara, Narok County, 
Kenya. Journal of Livestock Policy, 1(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.47604/jlp.v1i1.846 

 
Mungai, E. N., & Ogot, M. (2012). Gender, culture and enterprenuership in Kenya. International 

Business Research, 5(5), 175–183. http://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v5n5p175 
 
Mwakatobe, A. R., Ntalwila, J. A., Kohi, E. M., Kipemba, N., & Mrisha, C. (2016). Income 

generation promote the participation of youth and women in beekeeping activities in 
Western Tanzania. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 4(4), 718–721. 
https://www.entomoljournal.com/archives/2016/vol4issue4/PartJ/4-3-52-191.pdf  

 



Gikunda et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.113   85 
 

Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2009). Interviewing in qualitative research: The one-to-
interview. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabililation, 16(6), 309–316. 
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Patricia_Cronin2/publication/261471599_Intervi
ewing_in_qualitative_research/links/5767ae7508ae1658e2f76d07/Interviewing-in-
qualitative-research.pdf 

 
Sibani, C. M. (2018). Impact of Western culture on traditional African society: Problems and 

prospects. Journal of Religion and Human Relations, 10(1), 56-72. 
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Impact-of-Western-culture-on-traditional-
African-Sibani/08872c47c16631c47391f2fd40f1a25d34b4f665 

 
Šūmane, S., Kunda, I., Knickel, K., Strauss, A., Tisenkopfs, T., Rios, I. D. I., Rivera, M., Chebach, T., 

& Ashkenazy, A. (2018). Local and farmers’ knowledge matters! How integrating 
informal and formal knowledge enhances sustainable and resilient agriculture. Journal 
of Rural Studies, 59, 232-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.020 

 
Tharaka Nithi County Government. (2018). Development Plan CIDP 2018-2022. County 

Government of Tharaka Nithi. http://repository.kippra.or.ke/handle/123456789/2604 
 
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding 

cultural diversity in business (2nd ed.). Nicholas Brealey.  
 
Verma, T. C., Meena, K. C., Aswal, S., & Singh, D. K. (2018). Socio-personal and economic 

analysis of apiculture enterprise in Hadauoti region of Rajasthan. Economic Affairs, 
63(1), 261–268. https://doi.org/doi:10.30954/0424-2513.2018.00150.32 

 
Wambua, B. M., Musimba, N. K., & Muli, E. (2016). Socioeconomic analysis of beekeeping 

technologies in Kenya: A case study of Kitui County. International Journal of Education 
and Research, 4(4), 345–354. https://www.ijern.com/journal/2016/April-2016/27.pdf  

 
Yang, J. (2015). Recognition, validation, and accreditation of non-formal and informal learning. 

UNESCO Institute of Lifelong Learning. 
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000232656. 

 
Zoccali, P., Malacrino, A., Campolo, O., Laudani, F., Algeri, G. M., Giuntu, G., & Palmeri, V. 

(2017). A novel GIS-based approach to assess beekeeping suitability of Mediterranean 
lands. Saudi Journal of Biological Science, 24 (5),1045–1050. 
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2017.01.062 

 
 
 
© 2021 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


