Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
Published in: Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Do emotions influence the motivations and preferences of keepers of stingless bees?

Authors: Roberta Monique Amâncio Carvalho, Celso Feitosa Martins, Rômulo Romeu Nóbrega Alves, Ângelo Giuseppe Chaves Alves

Published in: Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

According to the biophilia hypothesis, an emotional affiliation with nature has been inherited during human biocultural evolution. Research on beekeeping can contribute to the scientific understanding of the influence of emotions in the human-nature relationship, since this activity provides concrete experiences of beneficial interaction between the human being and the environment by stimulating conservation-friendly values among practitioners. In this study, we investigated motivations and preferences driving beekeepers’ choices. We hypothesized that emotional criteria would be the main motivators in choosing to include beekeeping into small-scale farming systems. We also assumed that, once beekeeping has been chosen, the preference among species of bees for raising would also be influenced mainly by emotional criteria.

Methods

Data were collected from free lists and semi-structured interviews with 52 keepers of stingless bees from Sítio Xixá in the state of Pernambuco, Brazil. The content analysis technique was used to analyze data from interviews. The underlying criteria for motivation and preference quoted in the free lists were analyzed with Smith’s Salience Index.

Results

Emotional and esthetic criteria were the most salient motivations for choosing beekeeping as one of the activities in small-scale farming systems. On the other hand, honey productivity and bee behavior were the most salient criteria for the preference for certain bee species to be kept.

Conclusions

Emotional criterion had an especially notable influence on the motives for practicing beekeeping, but not on the preference of species to be raised. This demonstrates that the scenario under study represents a panorama of multiple influences in which emotions are one, but not the only, important component. Finally, our results indicate that the emotional domain should be taken into account in environmental education efforts and in the planning of bee management and nature conservation policies.
Footnotes
1
According to the informants, in the study area, M. scutellaris has an average honey productivity of 2 L/colony/year and A. mellifera 20 kg/colony/year. Data from the Brazilian Association of Honey Exporters [60] show A. mellifera has an average of 15 kg/colony/year. Villas-Bôas [61] recorded 2.2 L/colony/year for M. scutellaris in the state of Paraíba, Brazil.
 
2
According to the informants, M. scutellaris would visit only specific flowers in search of resources for honey production, while A. mellifera would supposedly visit various types of materials, such as sugarcane resin (see [62]), dead animals, and even animal feces. Thus, honey from A. mellifera was considered locally as “dirty” (see [63‐65]).
 
Literature
1.
Norton BG. The preservation of species. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1986.
2.
Kaltenborn BP, Bjerke T, Nyahongo JW, Williams DR. Animal preferences and acceptability of wildlife management actions around Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Biodivers Conserv. 2006;15:4633–49.CrossRef
3.
Ulrich RS. Biophilia, biophobia and natural landscapes. In: Kellert SR, Wilson EO, editors. The biophilia hypothesis. Washington DC: Island Press; 1993. p. 73–137.
4.
Stokes DL. Things we like: human preferences among similar organisms and implications for conservation. Hum Ecol. 2007;35:361–9.CrossRef
5.
Kellert SR. The value of life: biological diversity and human society. Washington DC: Island Press; 1996.
6.
Martín-López B, Montes C, Benayas J. The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv. 2007;139(1):67–82.CrossRef
7.
Zhang W, Goodale E, Chen J. How contact with nature affects children’s biophilia, biophobia and conservation attitude in China. Biol Conserv. 2014;177:109–16.CrossRef
8.
Ballouard JM, Provost G, Barré D, Bonnet X. Influence of a field trip on the attitude of schoolchildren toward unpopular organisms: an experience with snakes. J Herpetol. 2012;46(3):423–8.CrossRef
9.
Anderson EN. Ecologies of the heart: emotion, belief, and the environment. Oxford: University Press on Demand; 1996.
10.
Hunn E. To know them is to love them. Ethnobiology Letters. 2014;5:146–50.CrossRef
11.
Soulé ME. Mente na biosfera; mente da biosfera. In: Wilson EO, editor. Biodiversidade. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira; 1997. p. 593–8.
12.
Wilson EO. Biofilia. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica; 1989.
13.
Kellert SR, Wilson EO. The biophilia hypothesis. Washington DC: Island Press; 1993.
14.
Nolan JM, Robbins MC. Emotional meaning and the cognitive organization of ethnozoological domains. J Linguist Anthropol. 2001;11(2):240–9.CrossRef
15.
Nolan JM, Jones KE, Mcdougal KW, Mcfarlin MJ, Ward MK. The lovable, the loathsome, and the liminal: emotionality in ethnozoological cognition. J Ethnobiol. 2006;26(1):126–38.CrossRef
16.
Tanner, TR. Educação ambiental. Educaçao ambiental. Summus, 1978.
17.
Nabhan GP, Antoine SS. The loss of floral and faunal story: the extinction of experience. In: Kellert SR, Wilson EO, editors. The biophilia hypothesis. Washington DC: Island Press; 1993. p. 229–50.
18.
Kellert SR. Birthright: people and nature in the modern world. New Haven and London: Yale University Press; 2012.
19.
Kerr WE. As abelhas e o meio ambiente. XII Congresso Brasileiro de Apicultura. Salvador-Brasil; 1998.
20.
Imperatriz-Fonseca VL. Serviços aos ecossistemas, com ênfase nos polinizadores e polinização. São Paulo: USP; 2004.
21.
Carvalho CAL, Alves RMO, Souza BA. Criação de abelhas sem ferrão: aspectos práticos. 1st ed. Cruz das Almas: Serie Meliponicultura; 2003.
22.
Carvalho-Zilse GA, Silva CGN, Alves RMO, Souza BA, Waldschmidt AM, Sodré GS, Carvalho CAL. Meliponicultura: perguntas mais frequentes sobre as abelhas sem ferrão. 1st ed. Cruz das Almas: Serie Meliponicultura; 2011.
23.
Jaffé R, Pope N, Carvalho AT, Maia UM, Blochtein B, De Carvalho CAL, Carvalho-Zilse GA, et al. Bees for development: Brazilian survey reveals how to optimize stingless beekeeping. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):1–21.CrossRef
24.
Chanthayod S, Zhang W, Chen J. People’s perceptions of the benefits of natural beekeeping and its positive outcomes for forest conservation: a case study in Northern Lao PDR. Trop Conserv Sci. 2017;10:1–11.CrossRef
25.
Maderson S, Wynne-Jones S. Beekeepers’ knowledges and participation in pollinator conservation policy. J Rural Stud. 2016;45:88–98.CrossRef
26.
Park MS, Youn YC. Traditional knowledge of Korean native beekeeping and sustainable forest management. Forest Policy Econ. 2012;15:37–45.CrossRef
27.
Nogueira-Neto P. Vida e criação de abelhas indígenas sem ferrão. São Paulo: Editora Nogueirapis; 1997.
28.
Villas-Bôas JK. Manual tecnológico: mel de abelhas sem ferrão. Brasília: Instituto Sociedade, População e Natureza (ISPN); 2012.
29.
Michener CD. The bees of the world. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2007.
30.
31.
Pernambuco. Secretaria do Meio Ambiente e Sustentabilidade-SEMAS. Proposta para criação de Unidade de Conservação na Mata de Água Azul – Timbaúba, Vicência e Macaparana, estado de Pernambuco. Recife; 2014.
32.
Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica. Information obtained through the app “Aqui tem Mata?” with data from the “Atlas da Mata Atlântica”, of the Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica and Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Especiais - INPE. 2017. Accessed 29 Nov 2017.
33.
Bailey K. Methods of social research. 4th ed. New York: The Free Press; 1994.
34.
Albuquerque UP, Ramos MA, Lucena RFP, Alencar NL. Methods and techniques used to collect ethnobiological data. In: Albuquerque UP, Cunha LVFC, Lucena RFP, Alves RRN, editors. Methods and techniques in ethnobiology and ethnoecology. New York: Springer; 2014. p. 39–64.CrossRef
35.
Bardin L. Análise de Conteúdo. São Paulo: Edições 70; 2011.
36.
Borgatti SP. ANTHROPAC 4.0. Natick: Analytic Technologies; 1996.
37.
Smith JJ. Using ANTHROPAC 3.5 and a spreadsheet to compute a free-list salience index. Cult Anthropol Methods. 1993;5(3):1–3.
38.
39.
Yap N, Devlin J, Otis G, Dang TV, Nguyen HT. Beekeeping, wellbeing, transformative change: development benefits according to small farmers in Vietnam. J Rural Community Dev. 2015;10(1):19–31.
40.
Moore LJ, Kosut M. Among the colony: ethnographic fieldwork, urban bees and intra-species mindfulness. Ethnography. 2014;15(4):516–39.CrossRef
41.
Lawrence EA. The sacred bee, the filthy pig, and the bat out of hell: animal symbolism as cognitive biophilia. In: Kellert SR, Wilson EO, editors. The biophilia hypothesis. Washington DC: Island Press; 1993. p. 301–41.
42.
Santos GM, Antonini Y. The traditional knowledge on stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponina) used by the Enawene-Nawe tribe in western Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2008;4:19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Phillips C. Following beekeeping: more-than-human practice in agrifood. J Rural Stud. 2014;36:149–59.CrossRef
44.
Carvalho RMA, Martins CF, Mourão JS. Meliponiculture in Quilombola communities of Ipiranga and Gurugi, Paraíba state, Brazil: an ethnoecological approach. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2014;10:3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Léo-Neto NA, Grünewald RA. “Lá no meu reinado eu só como é mel”: dinâmica cosmológica entre os índios Atikum, PE. Tellus. 2014;22:49–80.
46.
Carvalho RMA, Martins CF. “É uma abelha sagrada”: dimensão simbólica da criação de abelhas sem ferrão em comunidades quilombolas da zona da mata sul paraibana. Gaia Scientia. 2014;Vol. Esp. Pop. Trad.:15–27.
47.
48.
Kerr WE. The history of the introduction of African bees to Brazil. S A Bee J. 1967;39(2):3–5.
49.
Visscher PK, Vetter RS, Baptista FC. Africanized bees, 1990-1995: initial rapid invasion has slowed in the US. Calif Agric. 1997;52:22–5.CrossRef
50.
França FOS, Benvenuti LA, Fan HW, Dos Santos DR, Hain SH, Picchi-Martins FR, et al. Severe and fatal mass attacks by ‘killer’ bees (Africanized honeybees – Apis mellifera scutellata) in Brazil: clinicopathological studies with measurement of serum venom concentrations. Q J Med. 1994;87:269–82.PubMed
51.
52.
Winston ML. Killer bees: the Africanized honey bee in the Americas. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1992.CrossRef
53.
Musimba NKR, Nyariki DM, Mutungi EM. The socio-economics, culture and ecology of bee-keeping among the Akamba Community of Southern Kenya. J Hum Ecol. 2001;12(3):207–16.CrossRef
54.
Gebeyehu A, Kebede T, Zuber S, Gutu T, Umeta G, Lemma T, et al. Participatory rural appraisal investigation on beekeeping in Arsi Negelle and Shashemene districts of West Arsi zone of Oromia, Ethiopia. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2010;22(7):1–11.
55.
Reyes-González A, Camou-Guerrero A, Reyes-Salas O, Argueta A, Casas A. Diversity, local knowledge and use of stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponini) in the municipality of Nocupétaro, Michoacan, Mexico. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2014;10(1):47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
56.
Mauss M. Ensaio sobre a dádiva. São Paulo: Edições 70; 2008.
57.
Rangel-Landa S, Casas A, García-Frapolli E, Lira R. Sociocultural and ecological factors influencing management of edible and non-edible plants: the case of Ixclatán, Mexico. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2017;13:59.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
Tilahun M, Abraha Z, Gebre A, Drumond P. Beekeepers’ honeybee colony selection practice in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Livestock research for rural development, vol. 28; 2016. p. 5.
59.
Cortopassi-Laurino M, Imperatriz-Fonseca VL, Roubik DW, Dollin A, Heard T, Aguilar I, et al. Global meliponiculture: challenges and opportunities. Apidologie. 2006;37:275–92.CrossRef
60.
61.
Villas-Bôas JK. Sistema produtivo e bionomia aplicada ao manejo da abelha uruçu (Melipona scutellaris Latreille, 1811) no litoral da Paraíba. Masters dissertation in Universidade Federal da Paraíba. 2010.
62.
Sereia MJ, Alves EM, Toledo VA, Marchini LC, Sekine ES, Faquinello P, Almeida D, Moreti AC. Physicochemical characteristics and pollen spectra of organic and non-organic honey samples of Apis mellifera L. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2011;83(3):1077–90.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Cortopassi-Laurino M, Gelli DS. Analyse pollinique, propriétés physico-chimiques et action antibactérienne des miels d’abeilles africanisées Apis mellifera et de Méliponinés du Brésil. Apidologie. 1991;22:61–73.CrossRef
64.
DeMera JH, Angert ER. Comparison of the antimicrobial activity of honey produced by Tetragonisca angustula (Meliponinae) and Apis mellifera from different phytogeographic regions of Costa Rica. Apidologie. 2004;35:411–7.CrossRef
65.
Vit P, Medina M, Enríquez E. Quality standards for medicinal uses of Meliponinae honey in Guatemala, Mexico and Venezuela. Bee World. 2004;85(1):2–5.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Do emotions influence the motivations and preferences of keepers of stingless bees?
Authors
Roberta Monique Amâncio Carvalho
Celso Feitosa Martins
Rômulo Romeu Nóbrega Alves
Ângelo Giuseppe Chaves Alves
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1746-4269
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-018-0246-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research

Ethnobotanical knowledge of the lay people of Blouberg area (Pedi tribe), Limpopo Province, South Africa

Research

Ethnomedicinal applications of animal species by the local communities of Punjab, Pakistan

Research

Who should conduct ethnobotanical studies? Effects of different interviewers in the case of the Chácobo Ethnobotany project, Beni, Bolivia

Research

Traditional knowledge about plant, animal, and mineral-based remedies to treat cattle, pigs, horses, and other domestic animals in the Mediterranean island of Sardinia

Research

The return of the Iberian lynx to Portugal: local voices

Research

Indigenous uses of ethnomedicinal plants among forest-dependent communities of Northern Bengal, India