See the Change, Bee the Change: Perceptions of Swarms and Urban Apiculture in Portland, OR

1. Daniel Peniston, Laura Schroeder, Hayley Still ENVS 330 Spring 2014 See the Change, Bee the Change: Perceptions of Swarms and Urban Apiculture in Portland, OR Context Honeybees are an integral part of the global ecosystem and are responsible for pollinating a third of the world’s crops, making recent declines in bee populations a cause for concern. Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), has affected between 50% and 90% of bee colonies in beekeeping operations around the United States alone (Van Engelsdorp et al 2009). CCD’s causes are still unknown, but many claim that anthropogenic actions such as land use intensification and climate change have had an impact on bee populations worldwide. Despite the growing concern for bee populations, many people still harbor an aversion to bee swarms and consider them to be threatening. However, swarming is an important process for honeybee colonies because it is both when the colony reproduces and finds a new home. Because swarms tend to settle in inconvenient locations (like a telephone pole or fence), they are often regarded as a public nuisance or threat. Cann et al (2011) argue that misconceptions of the honeybee such as the idea that the insect will repeatedly and viciously sting humans discourage many from keeping bees. In reality, bees in a swarm are the least likely to attack or sting anyone (unless provoked) because they have no hive to protect and are in reproduction mode. In our research, we explore perceptions of swarming and urban beekeeping in Portland, OR through content analyses of newspaper articles and drawings. Our findings suggest that swarms are seen as a public nuisance and that bees are largely perceived as dangerous, pointing to a greater need to educate the public about common misconceptions regarding urban beekeeping. What are the prevailing public perceptions of swarms, and how are these perceptions related to the rising trend of urban beekeeping? Results Of the newspaper articles analyzed, we found significant relationships between the valence of article titles and the perceptions of swarms as a nuisance (p = .002). When swarms specifically were featured in the titles of articles, the tone of the title was almost always negative (p = .009). Similar to this was the relationship between swarm in titles and the valence of urban beekeeping in general (p = .089). In response to our prompt to draw a bee, 62% of bees drawn had stingers, many of them accentuated. Of the bees with distinguishable facial expressions, 85% of them were depicted as happy or content.  When asked to draw two things they associate with urban beekeeping, participants drew beekeepers were drawn 40% of the time. Of these depictions, 85% of the beekeepers were clad in a suit or mask. Furthermore, when beekeepers were drawn wearing suits the swarms were generally in close proximity to the individuals when encountering them. Mechanisms (bee boxes, nets, smokers, etc.) were the most commonly associated with urban beekeeping.   Interestingly, the mechanism and product variables are associated, implying a commoditization of bees.       When encounters with swarms were drawn, results were divided between positive and negative experiences (exactly 50% of figures drawn had negative facial expressions). Portland Urban Beekeepers (PUB) founder Tim Wessels stands by his personal hives. Tim uses swarm removals as an educational opportunity and does not wear a suit to demonstrate that swarms are generally docile. Conclusion     Our results from the newspaper analysis indicate that when titles were overall negative this correlated to swarms being portrayed as public nuisances in the article. Furthermore, that most titles with swarms in them were negative which again seems coherent with public perceptions about swarms as negative. This means that in articles where the word swarm was featured in the title, the content of the article generally portrayed urban beekeeping as negative as well. Furthermore, when participants drew mechanisms (i.e., smokers, bee boxes) for beekeeping they typically drew products of bees as well (honey, honeycombs). This implies that many still consider bees in a utilitarian sense, as a providers of honey for us. The implications of this are that in some cases, urban beekeeping is done for the utilitarian outputs of it, and not for reasons of making a difference on dwindling bee populations. It would likely be beneficial in the long run for more swarm removers to use any opportunities they get to educate people about swarms, considering that most people consider beekeeping suits to be necessary in removing swarms. Education efforts such as not donning the traditional beekeeping suit when they are removing swarms, talking with concerned individuals throughout the removal process and maybe getting them involved could be effective. However, while these perceptions about urban beekeeping are in some ways contrasting, the rise of urban beekeeping, regardless of intentions, is considered by many to be good. As CCD is being featured more and more in the media, it is being considered a growing threat to both human populations and the natural world. The media tends to sensationalize pertinent issues like this, and in some cases this can actually help bring awareness about contemporary issues, and CCD is an example of this. As more people are exposed to stories about dwindling bee populations and the effects of this on human society, their concern for the bees grows as well. Methodology Our research consisted of two major parts: a content analysis of articles published by local newspapers that refer to swarming and a content analysis of images of bees, swarms, and objects associated with urban beekeeping drawn by Portlanders. Newspaper Content Analysis Procedure First, to assess perceptions of beekeeping and swarms promoted by Portland media, our group conducted content analysis on articles from Portland Tribune and The Oregonian published in the last four years. We typed the keywords “bee swarm*” into online search engines for each paper. We selected the first 12 articles from the The Oregonian and 8 from Portland Tribune. Next, we assessed each of the articles using a coding sheet we created. Picture Content Analysis Participants We collected drawings from 51 volunteers (26 females and 25 males, all adults) present at the SE Belmont and SE 42nd food cart pod. Procedure We approached individuals at the SE Belmont food cart pod and asked them to draw three images: 1) A bee; 2) Two things they associated with urban beekeeping; and 3) Themselves encountering a swarm of bees. After participants drew their pictures, we gave them each a honey stick and debriefed them on our research. Finally, we coded each drawing and analyzed our data using SPSS. • References • Alton, Karin, and Francis Ratnieks. “To Bee or Not to Bee.” Biologist 60, no. 4 (September 8, 2013): 12–15. • Camazine, S., P. K. Visscher, J. Finley, and R. S. Vetter. “House-Hunting by Honey Bee Swarms: Collective Decisions and Individual Behaviors.” InsectesSociaux 46, no. 4 (November 1, 1999): 348–60. • Cann, Heather, Dave Lenton, Cassandra Mader, and Jennifer Van Overbeeke. “Urban Livestock: • Barriers and Opportunities Faced by Homesteaders in the City of Waterloo.” Wrfoodsystem.ca. N.p., 6 Dec. 2011. Web. 2 Apr. 2014. doi:10.1007/s000400050156. • Cox-Foster, Diana L., Sean Conlan, Edward C. Holmes, Gustavo Palacios, Jay D. Evans, Nancy A. Moran, Phenix-LanQuan, et al. “A Metagenomic Survey of Microbes in Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder.” Science 318, no. 5848 (October 12, 2007): 283–287. doi:10.1126/science.1146498 PMID: 17823314. • Freeman, Jacqueline, “Title unknown.” Speech, Portland, OR, March 5, 2014. • Girling, Robbie D., InkaLusebrink, Emily Farthing, Tracey A. Newman, and Guy M. Poppy. “Diesel Exhaust Rapidly Degrades Floral Odours Used by Honeybees.” Scientific Reports 3 (October 3, 2013). doi:10.1038/srep02779. • Ransome, Hilda M. The Sacred Bee in Ancient Times and Folklore. Courier Dover Publications, 2012. • Spivak, Marla. Why Bees Are Disappearing. June 2013. TED: Ideas Worth Spreading. Accessed April 13, 2014.http://www.ted.com/talks/marla_spivak_why_bees_are_disappearing. Video recording. • Vanbergen, Adam J, and the Insect Pollinators Initiative. “Threats to an Ecosystem Service: Pressures on Pollinators.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11, no. 5 (April 22, 2013): 251–259. doi:10.1890/120126. • Van Engelsdorp D, Evans JD, Saegerman C, Mullin C, Haubruge E, et al. (2009) Colony Collapse Disorder: A Descriptive Study. PLoS ONE 4(8): e6481. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006481. • Yanagisako, Sylvia, and Carol Delaney. Naturalizing Power: Essays in Feminist Cultural Analysis. Routledge, 2013. • Wessels, Tim. Personal Interview. March 13, 2014. Did You Know? According to buzzaboutbees.com, in 2000, only 54 people died due to bee stings in the United States, according to World Health Organization data. At this time, there were 281 million people living in the U.S. It is more likely to die from getting struck by lightning, the flu, or homicide than to die from a bee sting. (On average, 90 people are killed by lightning each year in the U.S. and more than 20,000 die of the flu. In 2000, there were 15,217 murders.)