Sample and procedure

In order to obtain the information, a survey was designed and applied to 88 beekeepers, so as to explore the cognitive relationship, based on Festinger's CDT¹⁸, between perception, attitude and behavior in the face of climate change, as well as the adaptation strategies that are practiced or that can be implemented.

Because there was no official beekeeping census in the central region, the list of beekeepers who were issued a Varroa destructor infestation certificate (which was not considered as an indicator or selection parameter) by the national governing body in the state delegation of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA) during the 2012-2013 period, was considered as the sample population, being the only information available to obtain a list of beekeepers.

The sample size was estimated by means of William Scheaffer's formula¹⁹, n= N𝜎 2 /[(N-1)D+𝜎 2], considering as the sample population the list of beekeepers described above. The values utilized were: n= 247, standard deviation of the number of beehives (𝜎)= 200.6 and B= 34.4. With the information collected, an exploratory analysis was carried out with the Statistica^© 7 software, using univariate methods, for the cognition forms perception, attitude and behavior. Finally, these three cognition forms were associated through a bivariate analysis in order to explore the presence of dissonance among them.

Questionnaire

A questionnaire with 10 open questions for the perception and behavior cognitions, categorized according to the answers of the beekeepers, was designed and applied; a content analysis was carried out²⁰ to identify emerging analytical categories.

The attitude questions considered the willingness of beekeepers to adopt nine climate change adaptation strategies; for this purpose, each item was arranged in a Lickert scale, in which the categories and their values were: (5) Strongly Agree (SA), (4) Agree (AG), (3) Neutral (IN), (2) Disagree (DG), (1) Strongly Disagree (SD) Considering the response value (3) as a low positive attitude, and the response (5), as a very high positive attitude. The Lickert formula was defined as: LI=TS/TNOS, where LI (Lickert index); TS (total score), and TNOS (total number of statements).

The cognitive dissonant elements were explored by analyzing bivariate histograms delimited by a matrix for interpreting the inconsistent state²¹. Four quadrants were used, each of which represents a potential cognitive status of the beekeepers, in a positive or negative way as follows (Figure 1): Quadrant I, positive dissonant: (1) and (2) has a negative attitude towards adaptation strategies but carries them out. Quadrant II, positive consonant: (1), (2) and (3), has a positive attitude towards adaptive strategies and carries them out. Quadrant III, negative consonant: (1) and (2) has a negative attitude towards adaptive strategies and does not carry them out. And Quadrant IV, negative consonant: (1), (2) and (3) has a positive attitude towards adaptive strategies but does not carry them out.

Figure 1 Attitude versus behavior cognitive status decision matrix 

Beekeepers' perception of climate change

In order to determine whether climate change was a problem and how important it might be in relation to other situations, the first question was: What do you think is the main problem that beekeeping faces today? 66.4 % of the answers were "climate variation", followed by "the variation in the flowering seasons". The next most frequent answer was the lack of space or the increase in the number of apiaries per area (17.1 %) (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Perception of the main problem for beekeeping in the central region 

In question number two, what do you understand by climate change? 30.2 % answered that it is "a problem of seasonality"; another 24 % defined it as "changes in natural cycles due to deforestation"; 13.5 % answered "I don't know", and 12.5 % mentioned "global warming" (GW) (Figure 3).

Figure 3 Beekeepers' perception of the concept of climate change 

When asked through which media they had learned about climate change, most beekeepers answered, through the television (39 %) as the most important information medium, followed by the newspapers (20 %).

The next question was: Do you remember any extreme weather events that have affected beekeeping? 70 % answered "Yes". Of those 58 % mentioned as the main event "the shortage of blooms", because of a climatic event that beekeepers called "an unexpected frost", in two different areas; one was the area of the high plains (51 %) corresponding to the state of Veracruz, and the other, the area of the high plains corresponding to the state of Puebla (59 %).

Given that the producers of the region had an average experience of 20 yr in the activity⁸, they were asked: "Do you remember a particular year in which the production of honey has been low or bad?” 35.2 % of the beekeepers perceived 2010 to have been such a year, due to the presence of a hurricane. Although when reviewing the state's production volume records, 2005 was found to be the year with the lowest production¹⁷, while only 1.4 % of beekeepers remembered that year as, "a bad year in bee production" (Figure 4). In 2010, Mexico was hit by hurricane Karl, which affected this beekeeping region through the loss of beehives²², and thereby the relationship between the meteorological phenomenon and honey production was confirmed, although this does not coincide with the official records of production in that year¹⁷. Nevertheless, for beekeepers, the economic impact marked that year as a bad year for production.

Figure 4 Perception of the years with presence of extreme weather events that damaged beekeeping in the central region, versus the total production reported in the state 

Based on the perception of the climatic conditions in the last two decades, 97.7 % of the beekeepers perceive that the climate in the region has changed. Hence, the following question: How have the climatic factors temperature, rainfall, drought, and frost changed in the last twelve years? In order to answer this question, three categories of change were established: a) qualitative: whether the beekeeper perceived an increase, decrease or constancy in the climatic factors; b) frequency: whether an increase, decrease or constancy in the pattern of the event was perceived; and, finally, c) intensity: whether the events had decreased or increased the force of impact.

Reportedly, 95.5 % of the producers perceived a qualitative increase in temperature; 71.6 %, in precipitation, and 47.7 %, in drought, but no change in frost. Regarding changes in frequency, 83 % of the individuals perceived an increase in temperature; 56.8 %, in precipitation, and 30.7 %, in droughts, while no changes were perceived in frosts. In terms of intensity, 87.5 % of the individuals perceived that changes in temperature are more severe; 69.3 %, that precipitation is more intense, while 59.1 % perceived that drought conditions remain the same, and 38.6%, that frosts have remained constant (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Changes in four climatic factors involved in the beekeeping activity. 

In regard to question eight - “In the last years have you noticed changes in the beekeeping interest blooms?-, 100 % perceived changes in the blooming and changes that affected the volumes of honey production. Based on this fact, they were asked if they knew of any adaptation measures in beekeeping to reduce the impact of climate change, and which ones they knew of. 71.6 % were aware of certain adaptation strategies: reforestation with melliferous species (35 %), artificial feeding (32 %), queen replacement (11.1 %), better apiary management (11.1 %), and transhumance (10 %).

Beekeepers' attitude to climate change

Table 1 shows the frequency of response in the nine statements, where the activity of "Reforesting" stands out, with 92 % of the interviewees having said to "SA" with the "Replacement of certified queens", while fifty-one percent "SA", although the lack of productive viability of the acquired biological material, the costs, and the lack of trust in the distributors have a negative influence on this activity. For example, in the state of Yucatan, queen breeders cover less than 1% of the demand. The remaining percentage is covered (when extremely necessary) with queen bees from different states that may be carriers of diseases or genotypes that will not prove highly productive in the region²³.

The statement "Changes in apiary management" had a cumulative percentage of 50% in "SA" and while the other half showed a "IN" (neutral) or negative attitude. Despite the fact that 72.7 % said they were willing to adopt the provisions of the Good Beekeeping Practices "GBP". In the case of beekeepers, the "adoption" of such practices is perceived merely as a requirement to access support programs and not as a method to produce honey under technical recommendations, which should help beekeepers to carry out management records for the planning of the next cycle, similarly to the actions carried out by beekeepers in other countries such as Nigeria⁴.

Two attitudinal questions including perception and behavior were established. The first is: “Are you willing to implement any of the above strategies that you are not currently carrying out within your beekeeping activities, and what activity would that be?” The most frequent response was "reforestation", with 59 %, followed by a percentage of the population that answered "none" (29 %); others answered, "artificial feeding" (7 %) and "change management" (3 %), and only 1 % mentioned "receiving technical assistance or training".

The last question in the section was: “What actions do you think federal and state institutions should be taking to help beekeepers adapt to climate change?” 46.6 % said that "economic resources should be allocated directly" to them, allowing them to decide on how to spend these; 13.6 % stated that "melliferous species reforestation programs should be implemented", and 10.2 % said that institutions should "facilitate and speed up beekeeping procedures" for transhumant beekeepers. The remaining percentage considered actions such as: "prohibition of pesticides" (7.9 %), "conservation of natural areas" (7.9 %), "beekeeping training" (5.7 %), "supervision of apiaries" (3.4 %), "dissemination of the importance of pollinators" (2.3 %) and "promote national consumption of honey" (2.2 %).

Behavior of beekeepers in the face of climate change

In this section, the question was asked: “Have you implemented any strategies to adapt to current climate conditions and maintain production?” 80.7% said that at least some of the strategies have been implemented as an adaptation measure. However, the remaining 20.3% carry out some of these activities, but do not identify them as adaptation strategies. For example, artificial feeding (42.3 %), reforestation of melliferous species (26.8 %), replacement of queens (12.7 %), management changes in the apiary (9.9 %), transhumance (7.0 %), and genetic improvement (1.4 %).

To conclude the section, was asked: “What is the main limitation or obstacle for not carrying out any of the previous strategies?” Only 89.7 % answered: 56.9 % said "lack of economic capital"; 15.4 %, "indifference"; 5.0 %, "lack of own physical spaces" (for reforestation); 7.6 %, "lack of support from the government"; 5.0 %, "lack of time", and 2.5 %, "institutional bureaucracy" in procedures for the mobility of beehives.

Cognitive dissonance in the face of climate change

Beekeepers were observed to perceive climate change as a problem for their activity, through a system of ideas associated with beekeeping, i.e., a lag or change in the seasons (rain, dry and frost) and in blooming within an annual cycle.

This shows that the perception is built based on the effects that occur in beekeeping and ignores the origins and causes of the phenomenon at the global level. Therefore, the attitude and behavior regarding implementing adaptation strategies will depend on the perception of the negative impacts of the phenomenon on beekeeping, as shown by the decision matrix in Figure 1, and are as follows:

Reforesting. - It exhibited negative dissonance, since 72.73 % of the beekeepers expressed that they "SA" to carry out this practice. They regard the reforestation of melliferous species as relevant; however, only 19.33 % perform this action (Figure 6A); the dissonant beekeepers justify themselves by reinforcing the idea that they lack spaces of their own to implement it.

Reforestation, B) Replacement with own queen broods, C) Replacement with certified queen broods, D) Management, E) Good production and manufacturing practices, F) Increased number of visits to the apiary, G) Technical assistance for artificial feeding, H) Registration of blooms for transhumance.

Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (AG), Neutral (IN), Disagree (DG), Strongly Disagree (SD)

Figure 6 Cognitive dissonance in beekeepers regarding attitude and behavior in adaptation strategies 

Queen replacement. - It exhibited a negative dissonance, 71.59 % of the beekeepers “totally agree", and 23.86 % disagree, but only 1.14 % carry out this practice. However, in this same strategy, negative consonant beekeepers were observed, 2.27 % of whom claimed to “disagree", and 1.14 %, to “totally disagree” (Figure 6B). As for replacement with their own queens, this activity exhibited a similar state of dissonance between the "disagree" (43.18 %) and “agree” (7.95 %) attitude versus behavior, since only 9.09 % carry out this action, while 4.55 % maintained the negative consonant status (Figure 6C).

Management activities. - Here, most of the beekeepers who “totally disagreed" (47.73 %), "agreed" (20.45 %), and were "neutral" (7.95 %) were in a negative dissonant state, and only 5.68 % had made any changes in the management of their apiaries. A lower percentage were negative consonant in the "disagree" (7.95 %) and "totally disagree" attitudes (7.95 %) (Figure 6D).

GBPs. - There was a negative dissonance between the percentage of beekeepers who said that they “totally agree" ( 75 %), "agree" (15.91 %) and are "neutral" (1.14 %), versus 7.96 % who said they had taken action to implement GBPs (Figure 6E).

Artificial feeding and technical assistance - Artificial feeding of bees as an element linked to technical training was contrasted with the willingness of beekeepers to attend training courses, so that the negative cognitive dissonant state occurred in 65.91 % of beekeepers who "agree" and "totally agree" versus behavior, as only 30.68 % said that they were carrying out this practice, while negative consonance occurred in 2.28 % of the beekeepers (Figure 6G).

Bloom log, work log, and transhumance - Although transhumance is the main type of beekeeping practiced, it is not conceived as an adaptation strategy per se; however, when contrasting this activity with the willingness to keep bloom logs, 92.05 % of the beekeepers were observed to be willing to make such records and identify the need and importance of it, but only 4.55 % do so (Figure 6H), displaying negative dissonance between these two ideas.

Table 2 shows that most beekeepers are in a state of negative cognitive dissonance, which, according to the CDT, is a common cognitive status, as few things are clear enough to allow opinions and behaviors to be anything other than a mixture of contradictions¹².