Impact of IPARD Support on Beekeeping Performance: The Case of Van province, Türkiye
Abstract
This article examines the structural, productive, and managerial changes in beekeeping enterprises that have benefited by the European Union’s Instrument for Pre- Accession Assistance in Rural Development. The research was conducted using data obtained from 72 beekeeping businesses operating in Van province and receiving Instrument for Pre- Accession Assistance in Rural Development support, and the production capacity, productivity and management indicators of the businesses were compared in the pre-support and post-support periods. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the McNemar test were performed using SPSS 25.0 software in the analysis of the data. Analysis results showed that the number of hives, honey yield per hive, and total honey production increased statistically significantly in the post-support period compared to the pre-support period (P < 0.001). The effect size coefficients calculated for these statistically significant variables revealed that the observed differences are also practically important. While the increase in the number of employees was statistically significant, it remained at a lower level compared to other indicators (P < 0.01). Furthermore, the production of secondary bee products, the adoption of quality control practices, and the rate of hive insurance increased significantly in the post-support period (P < 0.001). Although the impact on marketing activities was limited, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance in Rural Development support substantially enhanced production performance and technical capacity. In conclusion, the study findings demonstrate that Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance in Rural Development is an effective tool for promoting sustainable development and provides valuable information for the formulation of future rural support policies.
Downloads
References
Tosun C, Oğuz C. IPARD supported beekeeping businesses’ socio-economical structure and problems: a case study of Van. Int. J. Innov. Approach. Agric. Res. [Internet]. 2020; 4(2):189-209. doi: https://doi.org/qp4d DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijiaar.2020.254.4
Gezginç Ö, Günlü A. Van ili IPARD desteklerinin hayvancılık sektörü açısından değerlendirilmesi. Van Vet. J. [Internet]. 2025; 36(1):23-29. doi: https://doi.org/qp4g DOI: https://doi.org/10.36483/vanvetj.1586061
Kosanović N, Karna M, Bartula M. Rural policy of Serbia and The Netherlands: comperative analysis. Agric. Econ. [Internet]. 2024; 71(4):1145-58. doi: https://doi.org/qp4h DOI: https://doi.org/10.59267/ekoPolj24041145K
Aksoy A, Ertürk YE, Erdoğan S, Eyduran E, Tariq MM. Estimation of honey production in beekeeping enterprises from Eastern Part of Turkey through some data mining algorithms. Pakistan J. Zool. [Internet]. 2018; 50(6):2199- 2207. doi: https://doi.org/grzw4b DOI: https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/2018.50.6.2199.2207
Erten Ö, Öztürk Y. Determination of Beekeepers’ Thoughts on Current Problems and Colony Losses. Rev. Cient. FCV- LUZ. [Internet]. 2025;35(1):e35572. doi: https://doi.org/qp4j DOI: https://doi.org/10.52973/rcfcv-e35572
Varalan A, Cevrimli MB. Determination of risk factors in beekeeping enterprises producing geographically indicated Kars honey. Acta Vet. Eurasia. [Internet]. 2024; 50(2):141-150. doi: https://doi.org/qp4k DOI: https://doi.org/10.5152/actavet.2024.23099
Keleş OC, Demir N, Eyduran E. Trabzon ilinde IPARD programı kapsamındaki arıcılık hibelerinin etkinliğinin belirlenmesi. 4th International Syposium on Innovative Approaches in Social, Human and Administrative Sciences; 2019 Nov 22-24; Samsun, Türkiye: . SETSCI Conference Proceedings. [Internet]. 2019. doi: https://doi.org/qp4p DOI: https://doi.org/10.36287/setsci.4.8.037
Tosun C, Oğuz C. Economic analysis and honey production cost of beekeeping enterprises supported by IPARD program case study of Van province. Custos Agronegocio. [Internet]. 2021 [cited 12 May 2025]; 17(3):176-197. Available in: https://goo.su/cUfCu8U
Mitreva E, Mitkovska T, Filiposki O, Gjorshhevski H. IPARD 1 programme-why and how its implementation did not succeed in Macedonia. TEM J. [Internet]. 2019; 8(2):437-443. doi: https://doi.org/qp4q DOI: https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM82-17
Yamane T. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis. 2nd ed. New York, USA: Harper and Row, 1967.
Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: and sex and drugs and rock “N” roll. 4th ed. London: Sage. 2013.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, Michigan, USA: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Internet]. 1988 [cited 25 Jul 2025]. Available in: https://goo.su/lRrenua
Çevrimli MB, Sakarya E. Arıcılık işletmelerinin yapısal özellikleri ve sorunları Ege Bölgesi Örneği. Eurasian J. Vet. Sci. [Internet]. 2018; 34(2):83-91. doi: https://doi.org/n642 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15312/EurasianJVetSci.2018.187
Doğan N, Adanacıoğlu H. Performance evaluation of beekeeping farms: a case study from Gümüşhane, Turkey. Pakistan J. Zool. [Internet]. 2021; 53(5):1837-1846. doi: https://doi.org/qp4r DOI: https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/20201217151232
Varalan A, Çevrimli MB. Kars ilinde arcılık işletmelerinin Sosyo-ekonomik yapısı üzerine bir araştırma. Dicle Üniv. Vet. Fak. Derg. [Internet]. 2023; 16(2):102-107. doi: https://doi.org/px6b DOI: https://doi.org/10.47027/duvetfd.1330239
Mohanty AK, Bordoloi RM, Amrutha T, Singha AK, Kumar B, Athare T, Jangid BL, Keshava, Kumar A. Promotion of beekeeping as a potential option for agriprenureship: insights in context of Mann Ki Baat (inner thoughts). Indian J. Agric. Sci. [Internet]. 2023; 93(5):475-483. doi: https://doi.org/qp4s DOI: https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v93i5.135462
Kaya U, Gürcan İS. An evaluation of the efficiency of beekeeping enterprises in Hatay province with data envelopment analysis. Ankara Univ. Vet. Fak. Derg. [Internet]. 2021; 68(3):229-235. doi: https://doi.org/qp4t DOI: https://doi.org/10.33988/auvfd.754619
Onuç Z, Yanar A, Saner G, Güler D. Arıcılık faaliyetinin ekonomik yönü üzerine bir analiz: İzmir-Kemalpaşa ilçesi örneği Türkiye. Ege Univ. Ziraat Fak. Derg. [Internet]. 2019; 56(1):11-20. doi: https://doi.org/qp4v DOI: https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.420370
Polat M, Çevrimli MB, Mat B, Akın AC, Arikan MS, Tekindal MA. Economic analysis of beekeeping enterprises producing chestnut honey Black Sea region in Türkiye. Cogent Food Agric. [Internet]. 2023; 9(1):2237279. doi: https://doi.org/px6d DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2237279
Kulekçi M, Eyduran E, Altın AY, Tariq MM. Usefulness of MARS and Bagging MARS Algorithms in prediction of honey production in beekeeping enterprises from Elazig province of Turkey. Pakistan J. Zool. [Internet]. 2022; 54(3):1087-1093. doi: https://doi.org/qp4w DOI: https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/20200309160354
İnci H, Karakaya E, Topluk O. Bingöl ili arıcılık işletmelerinin yapısal özellikleri. Turk. J. Agric. Nat. Sci. [Internet]. 2022; 9(4):996-1013. doi: https://doi.org/n64z DOI: https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.1174465
Aksoy A, Demir N, Bilgiç A. A study on identifying the effectiveness of the beekeeping grants provided by IPARD program examples of Erzurum Kars and Agri provinces. Custos Agronegocio. [Internet]. 2018 [cited 7 Jul 2025]; 14(3):269-283. Available in: https://goo.su/aLYllyr
Cilavdaroğlu E, Gündüz Z. Yozgat ili arıcılık yapısının ve arıcılık faaliyetlerinin belirlenmesi. Anadolu Tarım Bilim. Derg. [Internet]. 2023; 38(1):145-162. doi: https://doi.org/qp4x DOI: https://doi.org/10.7161/omuanajas.1190845
Semerci A, Yurdugül-Topal A. Çanakkale ili arıcılık işletmelerinin sosyo-ekonomik analizi. Turk. J. Agric. Nat. Sci. [Internet]. 2023; 10(2):380-397. doi: https://doi.org/g7cz6s DOI: https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.1188662
Çevrimli MB, Sakarya E. Tarsim arılı kovan sigorta uygulamaları TR32 bölgesi örneği.MAKU J. Health Sci. Inst. [Internet]. 2017; 5(1):1-10. doi: https://doi.org/ qp4z DOI: https://doi.org/10.24998/maeusabed.289317
Adanacıoğlu H, Topal E, Kösoğlu M. Arıcılık işletmelerinin modern uygulamalara adaptasyon durumu: İzmir ili örneği. J. Anim. Prod. [Internet]. 2020; 61(1):1-8. doi: https://doi.org/qp42 DOI: https://doi.org/10.29185/hayuretim.669098
Işıl-Akbağ H, Özsayin D, İnce B. Muğla ili Fethiye ilçesi arıcılık faaliyetlerinin değerlendirilmesi. Anadolu J. Agric. Sci. [Internet]. 2025 [cited 25 Jul 2025]; 40(1):139-159. Available in: https://goo.su/lGQkyIe
Özmen-Özbakır G, Doğan Z, Öztokmak A. Adıyaman ili arıcılık faaliyetlerinin incelenmesi. Harran J. Agric. Food Sci. [Internet]. 2016; 20(2):119-126. doi: https://doi.org/qp43 DOI: https://doi.org/10.29050/harranziraat.259102
Ozkan G, Gurbuz İB. Have the Eu pre-accession funds achieved their purpose? beneficiary perspectives on the effects of the funds on production quality, rural development and sustainability. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. [Internet]. 2023 [cited 5 Jun 2025]; 23(1):515-529. Available in: https://goo.su/GbZM
Şerefoğlu C, Atsan T. The impact of the Eu instrument for pre-accession for rural development (IPARD) to Turkey. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 5 Jun 2025]; 12(4):133-140. Available in: https://goo.su/2ABR3oR
Kukoč M, Škrinjarić B, Juračak J. The impact assessment of the EU pre-accession funds on agriculture and food companies: the Croatian case. Spanish J. Agric. Res. [Internet]. 2021; 19(3):e0107. doi: https://doi.org/qp44 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2021193-16764
