|
Greener
Journal of Business and Management Studies Vol. 10(1), pp. 01-10, 2021 ISSN: 2276-7827 Copyright ©2021, the copyright of this article is
retained by the author(s) |
|
Improvement of Honey Marketing in Njombe and Siha Districts, Tanzania
Dr.
College of Humanities
and Business Studies,
Mbeya University of Science
and Technology, P.O. Box 131, Mbeya.
|
ARTICLE INFO |
ABSTRACT |
|
Article No.: 011421007 Type: Research |
The
mapping study commissioned by the United Nations Development Programme on honey
value-chain in Njombe and Siha districts, was done in 2014 to identify basic
deficiencies leading beekeepers underperform, in terms of honey production.
One of the deficiencies identified was on honey marketing. The study then
proposed the paradigm to improve the Honey Marketing. It is now five years
later without evaluation study on the improvement of Honey Marketing after
the intervention in the given districts. This study therefore evaluated the
extent to which the Honey Marketing is improved; and the influence of the
proposed paradigm on improvement of Honey Marketing in Njombe and Siha
districts. This study was approached quantitatively using descriptive and
explanatory survey designs. The data were gathered using questionnaire from
160 honey producers and 30 administrative practitioners who were sampled
through stratified simple random and purposive techniques respectively. The
gathered data were analyzed using Descriptive Statistics, Paired t-tests,
and Multiple Linear Regressions. It was found that, the Honey Marketing is
improved to a small extent in Siha and Njombe Districts after the
intervention. Furthermore, the proposed paradigm is found positive and
significant for improvement of Honey Marketing in Njombe and Siha districts.
It is therefore recommended that, the government and other stakeholders
should unequivocally linger to implement on the proposed paradigm to Honey
Marketing to a very great extent in the given districts and Tanzania at
large. |
|
Accepted: 18/01/2021 Published: 31/03/2021 |
|
|
*Corresponding Author CRN, Charles Raphael E-mail: crn201412@
yahoo. com Phone: +255
(0) 768 222 422 |
|
|
Keywords: |
|
|
|
|
1. INTRODUCTION
Beekeeping contributes socio-economic development and
environmental conservation in Tanzania and the globe at large in terms of being
a source of food, raw materials for manufacturing industries, medicine, and
source of employment and income (Mwakatobe & Mlingwa, 2006; Mbeiyererwa, 2014). One of the beekeeping
products as the source of food and medicine is honey.
The
global demand for honey has been increasing over the past 10 years due to the
general increase in living standards, and a higher interest in natural and health
products (International Trade Centre [ITC], 2015). The global market for honey
and its products was projected to exceed 1.9 MT by the year 2015. The major
producers of honey worldwide include Russia, China, USA, Mexico, Argentina,
Canada, Brazil and Australia and the major consumers and importers are Germany,
Japan, USA and UK (FAO, 2014; ITC, 2015). Tanzania honey on the global market
has been on decline systematically despite the rise in global demand. At the
same time, investment in beekeeping by various stakeholders has increased (ITC,
2015).
The
production and marketing of honey in Tanzania was higher following
independence in 1961 than what is currently experienced i.e. honey was among the significant non-wood products from the
forests with a higher contribution to the national GDP and international trade
(Mbeiyererwa, 2014). That strong
marketing resulted from a marketing organization of honey which was formed
following independence in 1961 in which Tanzanian exports averaged 467 tons of
honey (Ntenga, 1976). However, today the Honey Marketing (HM) has declined to
an insignificant level despite of Tanzanian high potential and favourable
environment for production of honey (Mbeiyererwa,
2014). The Bee Keeping Policy of 1998
indicates that, there was lack of efficient and effective marketing of bee
products including honey by the year 1997. The policy in page 15 stresses that,
great amounts of honey was not marketed properly in the districts of production
due to lack of efficient and effective marketing systems.
Studying
the Tanzanian status of honey trade with reference to domestic and
international markets, Mwakatobe and Mlingwa (2006) show that there was
inadequate marketing of bee products including honey. The honey marketing was
challenged with inaccessibility to markets; unreliable transport; lack of
market information; inadequate entrepreneurship skills among beekeepers; and
inadequate joint efforts in marketing.
By 2013 in Tanzania, there was no organized
marketing system for both local and foreign markets to encourage the
development and expansion of the honey industry (Match Maker Associates [MMA],
2013). Namwata, Mdundo and Malila (2013) likewise indicate that, unreliable
markets were among the major challenges in business of honey production for
quality improvement and market expansion in Tanzania by 2013.
By 2014, the honey marketing in Tanzania was not promising at all. For
example, there were no market collection centres (MCC) for honey collection
in bulk quantities for bulk-marketing; the honey price per litre was Tanzanian
Shillings (Tsh. 5,000/-) about 1.8 Euros; every honey producer sold his/her
honey independently; poor honey packaging for marketing; no reported organ or
machinery responsible for marketing honey from individual producers; no or very
few Marketing Cooperatives and Savings and Credit Societies for honey
producers; poor labelling; poor transport and distribution means (Mbeiyererwa, 2014).
Despite the available
market in the European Union (EU), inadequate marketing of honey is shown as
one of the barriers for Tanzania to export successfully her honey to EU
markets. Tanzania export of honey is challenged by low production, lack of
value adding mechanism, lack of capital for quality improvement, adjusting and
comply with sanitary or phytosanitary and inadequate
marketing of honey despite the available market in the EU (Patterson & Moshi, 2016). It further
portrayed that, marketing problems such as poor marketing infrastructure,
packaging materials, low market prices, limited market information and poor
marketing systems for both local and
foreign markets are among the constraints of honey
commercialization in Tanzania (Tutuba & Vanhaverbeke, 2018). As a result of poor HM in Tanzania, many
producers have been local (cooperatives, local brewing industries and urban
areas); many producers experience relatively poor working in unorganized
marketing systems; very limited external markets are accessible in other
African and European countries; and large of quantities of honey is sold at a
throw away price (Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism [MNRT],
2014; Nyatsande et al., 2014; Mwanyoka, 2017; International Finance Corporation [IFC], 2018).
Being that the case, some mapping studies and projects on honey
value-chain including marketing were conducted in Tanzania with intention of
identifying deficiencies and way forward for improvement. One of those studies
is the mapping study commissioned by the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) on honey value-chain in Njombe and Siha districts in 2014.
The
given study was carried out by Dr. Arbogast Mbeiyererwa, assisted by Prof.
Felician Tungaraza and Mr. Martin Mlele of Alpha and Omega Consulting Group
Limited. The study intended to identify basic deficiencies leading beekeepers
underperform, in terms of honey production. One of the deficiencies identified
was honey marketing (HM). Specifically, the consultants were supposed to engage
and sensitize with producers’ groups on formation of Marketing Cooperatives and
Savings and Credit Societies; and identify financial institution(s) and
prospective markets and link them with the target producer
groups/beneficiaries. As the result, the given study then proposed the paradigm
to improve the HM. The proposed paradigm emphasized on the formulation of an
organ/machinery responsible for HM; Market Collection Centres’ (MCC) for HM;
availability of potential market for honey; improving quality of honey for
marketing; improving packaging and branding honey for marketing. It is now five
years later without evaluation study on the improvement of HM after the
intervention in the given districts. Additionally, the previous studies (e.g. Patterson & Moshi, 2016;
Mwanyoka, 2017; IFC, 2018; Tutuba & Vanhaverbeke,
2018) hinted on HM as the challenge however, they didn’t address whether there
is any improvement after 2014. This study therefore evaluated the extent
to which the HM is improved; and the influence of the proposed paradigm on
the improvement of HM in Njombe/Siha district by specifically answering the
following questions:
i.
To what extent HM is improved in Njombe and Siha districts following
the proposed paradigm in 2014?
ii.
What is the difference between HM before
and after 2015 in Njombe and Siha
districts following the proposed paradigm in 2014?
iii.
What is the influence of the proposed
paradigm on improvement of HM in Njombe
and Siha districts?
2.
MATERIALS AND
METHODS
2.1 Approach
This study applied quantitative approach. The approach was used
due to the nature of the major questions addressed in this study. The extent
and causal-effect questions of this study required to be approached
quantitatively with the support of quantitative data. The approach facilitated
the understanding of the study problem more categorically by describing the
extent to which HM is improved; and explaining relationship between the variables i.e. proposed paradigm and improvement in HM in Njombe and Siha
Districts.
2.2 Design
Cross-sectional descriptive and explanatory survey designs were
used in this study. The designs aided in studying every honey producer and
practitioner as a unit of analysis. The designs similarly provided a quick,
resourceful and precise means of describing and explaining the true nature of
the population and their skills in relation to HM. The “what” questions of the
study demanded the use of the given designs in this study.
2.3 Area of the
Study
The data were collected from Njombe and Siha
districts in Tanzania. The mapping
study commissioned by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) which
proposed the paradigm was carried in the given districts in 2014. The districts
were then known for high production potential yet unexploited (Mbeiyererwa, 2014).
2.4 Sampling
Procedures
This study used stratified simple random sampling. The technique
aided in classifying the population of honey producers into strata of their
characteristics (original villages). The technique also provided an equal chance of selecting each producer from the strata
specified. The technique brought
forth the sample size of 160 honey producers. There are criteria of obtaining
sample size including formula, small population as whole, saturation point, and
nature of data analysis. However, the given sample size of 170 producers based
on the nature of data analysis i.e.
Multiple Linear Regression (MLR). The sample size requirements for MLR was
calculated using the formula “N > 50 +
8m (where m = number of predictors” by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). After
calculation, it was noted that, this study has not violated the sample size
assumption i.e. N>50+8 (5) = 90.
This study has a maximum of five predictors and 200 (i.e. 160 producers+40 administrators) cases which are more than 90
obtained from the given formula. However, 170 questionnaires were found
complete and useful for the data analysis i.e.
the response rate was 85%.
Additionally, 30 administrative practitioners were sampled
through purposive sampling technique. The administrative practitioners included
two public employees from Bee Keeping Department of each district, ward and
village executive officers, Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs)
representatives, among many.
Table 1:
Proposed and Field Obtained Sample Size
|
Surveyed Districts |
Surveyed Wards |
Proposed Sample Size |
Obtained Sample Size |
||
|
Respondents(F) |
Respondents (%) |
Respondents
(F) |
Respondents
(%) |
||
|
Njombe |
Mtwango |
18 |
09 |
15 |
09 |
|
Kichiwa |
18 |
09 |
14 |
8.2 |
|
|
Lupembe |
17 |
8.5 |
14 |
8.2 |
|
|
Mfiliga |
16 |
08 |
14 |
8.2 |
|
|
Metembwe |
16 |
08 |
14 |
8.2 |
|
|
Ikuna |
16 |
08 |
14 |
8.2 |
|
|
Siha |
Ivaeny |
19 |
9.5 |
15 |
09 |
|
Kashashi |
18 |
09 |
14 |
8.2 |
|
|
Nasai |
16 |
08 |
14 |
8.2 |
|
|
Livishi |
16 |
08 |
14 |
8.2 |
|
|
Makiwaru |
15 |
7.5 |
14 |
8.2 |
|
|
Ngarenairobi |
15 |
7.5 |
14 |
8.2 |
|
|
Total
|
200 |
100.0 |
170 |
100.0 |
|
2.5 Data Collection
Method
This study used essentially primary data and secondary data in
part. The primary data were collected by using questionnaires. Because the
particular data were collected from 200
respondents in twelve different wards in two districts; the
questionnaire became relatively cheap, quick and efficient in obtaining large
amounts of information from that large sample of respondents. The questionnaire
had closed-ended questions with multiple choice answer-options and they eased
analyzing the data using descriptive statistics, Paired t-test and Multiple
Linear Regression. The secondary data were collected using documentary review
especially the report of the proposed paradigm in 2014.
2.6 Data Analysis
Method
The collected data of this study were
analyzed principally using descriptive statistics (frequency, percentages,
mean, standard deviation), t-tests (paired/repeated measures), and multiple
linear regression. The descriptive statistics was used to analyze the
population personal information, variables for any assumption violation, and to
address specific objective number one of the study. Alternatively, t-tests was
used to analyze specific objective two which intended to compare the HM before
and after 2015 following the proposed paradigm in 2014 i.e.
Eta squared =
t2 ÷t2 + N –1
Moreover, multiple linear regression was
used to analyze specific objective three in testing and establishing
relationship between the proposed paradigm and improvement of HM in Njombe and Siha districts. The third
specific objective had more than one predictor and one outcome continuous
variable i.e.
Objective Two:
Y=ɑ+β1χ1+
β2χ2+ β3χ3+ β4χ4+β5χ5+ɛ
Where:
Y-Criterion (i.e. Improvement
of HM)
ɑ-constant (intercept)
β 1-5-Regression
Coefficients
Χ1-5-Predictors (i.e. Machinery, MCC, availability of P.Ms,
Quality of Honey, Packaging/Branding)
ɛ- Margin error
NB: the above methods were run with an aid
of Software Package for Statistical Analysis (SPSS)
Version 21.
2.7 Measurement of Variables
This study has variables whose measurements are well specified in
the Table 2.
Table 2:
Measurement of Variables
|
Variable |
Construct |
Measurement |
Scale |
Source |
|
Proposed
Paradigm |
Availability of Organ and Machinery Responsible for HM |
-support for markets’ accessibility -taking brokers’ responsibility -providing pertinent market information -identify/link markets with producers -engaging/sensitizing producers’ groups on formation of
Marketing Cooperatives and Savings and Credit Societies -educating producers on honey’s value-addition and quality
control -promoting/securing honey’s quality |
1. Not at all 2.To a small extent 3.To a moderate extent 4.To a great extent 5.To a very great extent |
Mbeiyererwa, 2014 |
|
Availability of Market Collection Centres (MCC) for HM |
-established place(s) for educating honey producers -established place(s) for collecting honey -established place(s) for processing and packaging honey -established place(s) for selling honey |
1. Not at all 2.To a small extent 3.To a moderate extent 4.To a great extent 5.To a very great extent |
Mbeiyererwa, 2014 |
|
|
Availability of Potential Market for Honey |
-presence of market for taking all produced honey -presence of not locally-based market for large quantities of
produced honey -presence of market which is
no longer based on immediate market (passer-by people, wapita-njia) -presence of market which is easily accessible by honey
producers -presence of market with lowest risks -presence of market
with honey product crossing international borders -presence of market
with honey receiving good price and in a simple way than imported honey |
1.
Not at all 2.To
a small extent 3.To
a moderate extent 4.To
a great extent 5.To a very great extent |
Mbeiyererwa, 2014 |
|
|
Availability of Quality Honey |
-there is clear and non-opaque honey -there is fresh and
more highly valued than imported honey -there is honey that
observes the demands from foreign market outlook -there is honey
associated with value addition |
1.
Not at all 2.To
a small extent 3.To
a moderate extent 4.To
a great extent 5.To
a very great extent |
Mbeiyererwa, 2014 |
|
|
Packaging and Branding |
-there is now stackable, plastic buckets with tight fitting lids
for transporting honey -there is adequate packaging materials for honey -there is adequate type of branding
and subsequent labelling to create name and/or provide necessary and tangible
information -the honey packaging is done for marketing
other than for only transporting -honey packaging is done presumably
outside the production locality |
1.
Not at all 2.To
a small extent 3.To
a moderate extent 4.To
a great extent 5.To
a very great extent |
Mbeiyererwa, 2014 |
|
|
HM |
HM
Improvement |
-market size is increased -market intensity is increased -market growth rate is increased -market consumption capacity is increased -market infrastructure is increased -market receptivity is increased |
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neutral 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree |
Global Edge, 2020 |
3.
RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
3.1 Personal Information of the Respondents
The personal information comprise of sex, age,
marital status, original/working district and education level. The results
indicate that, 71% of the surveyed honey producers/practitioners were male and
29% of them were female (Table 3).
The majority of the surveyed honey producers/practitioners were the male. This
implies that, more male are engaged in honey production when comparing to
female.
With
reference to the variable age of the surveyed producers/practitioners, the
range of ages is from 29 to 45 and above years whereas 4% of them had the age
of 29 and below years, 5% had the age between 30-34 years, 21% had the age
between 35-39 years, 29% had the age 40-44 years; and 41% of them had the age
of 45 and above years (Table 3). The
majority of the surveyed honey producers/practitioners had the age between
40-44 years old. This implies that, honey production in the surveyed districts
involve mainly middle ages.
Marital
status was one of the personal information assessed among the surveyed honey
producers/practitioners in the study at hand. The results demonstrate that 3%
of the surveyed producers/practitioners were single, 92% of them were married,
2% of them were divorced, and 3% of them were widows (Table 3). The majority of the honey producers/practitioners
surveyed in the given districts of Tanzania were married. The honey production
is majorly done by the married people compared to other groups.
Because
the location of this study was in two districts, the surveyed
producers/practitioners had to identify the specific district they were living
and working in. In so doing, 49% of the honey producers/practitioners
lived/worked in Njombe, 45% of them lived/worked in Njombe, and 6% of them
lived/worked in other areas beyond the given districts. The majority of the
surveyed producers/practitioners were therefore living/working in Siha though
the insignificant difference is observed from honey producers/practitioners
living in Njombe district. These results likewise imply that, there are very
few honey producers/practitioners who carry out honey production in the given
districts although they don’t live there.
The
lowest education level considered in the study at hand is no formal education
while the highest level is postgraduate education. The results in Table 3 specifies that 5% of the
surveyed producers/practitioners had no formal education, 41% of them had
primary education, 21% of them had secondary education, 13% of them had
certificate, 11% of them had diploma, 4% of them had bachelor degree, and 4% of
them had postgraduate education level. The majority of the surveyed honey
producers/practitioners had primary education level. This implies that, most of
them had no marketing skills as they are not addressed in primary schools. The
acquisition of the skills could depend highly extensive agents and other
sources.
Table
3: Personal Information of the Honey Producers/Practitioners
|
Producers/Practitioners’
Information |
|||
|
Personal
Information |
Scale |
Frequency |
Percent
|
|
Sex |
1.
Male |
119 |
71.0 |
|
2.
Female |
061 |
29.0 |
|
|
Total |
170 |
100.0 |
|
|
Age |
1.
29 and below years old |
07 |
04.0 |
|
2.
30-34 years old |
09 |
05.0 |
|
|
3.
35-39 years old |
35 |
21.0 |
|
|
4.
40-44 years old |
50 |
29.0 |
|
|
5.
45 and above years old |
69 |
41.0 |
|
|
Total |
170 |
100.0 |
|
|
Marital Status |
1.
Single |
05 |
03.0 |
|
2.
Married |
156 |
92.0 |
|
|
3.
Divorced |
04 |
02.0 |
|
|
4.
Widow |
05 |
03.0 |
|
|
Total |
170 |
100.0 |
|
|
Residential and Working District |
1.
Siha |
84 |
49.0 |
|
2.
Njombe |
77 |
45.0 |
|
|
3.
Beyond Siha/Njombe |
09 |
06.0 |
|
|
Total |
170 |
100.0 |
|
|
Education Level |
1.
No Formal Education |
09 |
05.0 |
|
2.
Primary Education |
69 |
41.0 |
|
|
3.
Secondary Education |
35 |
21.0 |
|
|
4.
Certificate |
25 |
13.0 |
|
|
5.
Diploma |
19 |
11.0 |
|
|
6.
Bachelor degree |
07 |
04.0 |
|
|
7.
Postgraduate Education |
06 |
04.0 |
|
|
Total |
170 |
100.0 |
|
3.2 Extent to Which HM is improved Following the Proposed Paradigm in 2014
This section
establishes the extent to which
the surveyed HM is improved in Njombe
and Siha districts following the proposed paradigm in 2014. The results in Table 4a exhibit that the organ/machinery responsible for HM was
not at all available by 12%, available to a small extent by 52%, available to a
moderate extent by 25%, available to a great extent by 6%, and available to a
very great extent by 5%. The majority of the surveyed honey producers found the organ/machinery responsible for HM being available but to a
small extent.
Furthermore, the honey producers responded that the
Marketing Collection Centres (MCC) were not at all available by 24%, available
to a small extent by 49%, available to a moderate extent by 18%, available to a
great extent by 5%, and available to a very great extent by 4% (Table 4a). The majority of the surveyed honey producers/practitioners found
the MCC being available but to a small extent.
Additionally, the honey producers responded that
the honey potential markets were not at all available by 54%, available to a
small extent by 34%, available to a moderate extent by 7%, available to a great
extent by 3%, and available to a very great extent by 2% (Table 4a). The majority of the surveyed honey producers/practitioners found the honey potential markets
being not available at all.
Besides, the honey producers/practitioners
responded that the quality honey was not at all available by 8%, available to a
small extent by 14%, available to a moderate extent by 67%, available to a great
extent by 9%, and available to a very great extent by 2% (Table 4a). The majority of the surveyed honey producers/practitioners found the quality honey
being available but to a moderate extent.
Above and beyond, the honey producers/practitioners
responded that the packaging and branding were not at all done by 61%, done to
a small extent by 28%, done to a moderate extent by 7%, done to a great extent
by 4%, and done to a very great extent by 0.5% (Table 4a). The majority of the surveyed honey producers/practitioners found honey packaging and branding
being done not at all.
Generally, the majority of honey
producers/practitioners in the surveyed districts responded on the improvement
of HM to a small extent in terms of availability of organ/machinery and market
collection centres. On the other hand, the majority of producers/practitioners
responded that there was no at all the improvement of HM in terms of
availability of potential markets, and packaging and branding. The improvement
of HM was observed in terms of availability of quality honey to a moderate
extent in the surveyed districts.
Table 4a: Extent to Which HM is improved Following the Proposed Paradigm in 2014
|
Scale |
Organ/ Machinery |
MCC |
Potential Markets |
Quality Honey |
Packaging /Branding |
|||||
|
|
F |
% |
F |
% |
F |
% |
F |
% |
F |
% |
|
Not
at all |
20 |
12 |
40 |
24 |
91 |
54 |
14 |
08 |
103 |
61 |
|
To
a small extent |
87 |
52 |
83 |
49 |
57 |
34 |
24 |
14 |
47 |
28 |
|
To
a moderate extent |
43 |
25 |
31 |
18 |
13 |
07 |
114 |
67 |
12 |
07 |
|
To
a great extent |
11 |
06 |
09 |
05 |
05 |
03 |
14 |
09 |
07 |
3.5 |
|
To
a very great extent |
09 |
05 |
06 |
04 |
04 |
02 |
04 |
02 |
01 |
0.5 |
|
Total |
170 |
100 |
170 |
100 |
170 |
100 |
170 |
100 |
170 |
100 |
Confirming the
above results using the mean scores; Table
4b reveals that the potential markets, packaging and branding of honey for
marketing were not at all available (i.e. with mean between 0 and 2.0);
organ/machinery and marketing centres being available but to a small extent (i.e.
with mean between 2.1 and 3.0); and quality honey being available but a
moderate extent (i.e. with mean between 3.1 and 3.4).
Table 4b: Extent to Which HM is improved Following the Proposed
Paradigm in 2014
|
Variable |
Sample Size |
Mean |
Standard Deviation |
|
1. Availability of Organ/Machinery for HM |
170 |
2.791 |
1.614 |
|
2. Availability of MCC for HM |
170 |
2.913 |
1.136 |
|
3. Availability of Potential Market for HM |
170 |
2.083 |
1.312 |
|
4. Availability of Quality Honey |
170 |
3.452 |
.765 |
|
5. Honey Packaging and Branding |
170 |
.904 |
1.103 |
Key: 0-2.0=Not
at all; 2.1-3.0=Small Extent; 3.1-3.4=Moderate Extent; 3.5-4.0=Great Extent;
4.1-5.0=Very Great Extent
The above results
are consistent to what was found previously in various studies. The inadequate
honey marketing particularly inaccessibility to
markets; unreliable transport; lack of market information; inadequate
entrepreneurship skills among beekeepers; and inadequate joint efforts in
marketing are similarly noted in the past (Mwakatobe & Mlingwa, 2006). Lack
of organized marketing system and unreliable markets for honey in Tanzania are
previously noted in various studies (e.g. Namwata, Mdundo & Malila; 2013;
MMA, 2013; Mbeiyererwa, 2014). The inadequate marketing,
poor marketing
infrastructure, packaging materials, low market prices, limited market
information and poor marketing systems for both local and foreign markets are
among the constraints of honey commercialization in Tanzania (Patterson &
Moshi, 2016; Mwanyoka, 2017; Tutuba & Vanhaverbeke, 2018).
3.3 The Difference between HM Before and After 2015 in Njombe and Siha Districts
The honey
producers/practitioners were asked to complete the questionnaire of both before
2015 (Time 1) and after 2015 (Time 2) following
the proposed paradigm in 2014 i.e. is there a significant
difference (change/improvement) in HM following the proposed paradigm in 2014? Does the intervention (i.e.
proposed paradigm) have an improvement of HM in the surveyed districts?
In determining the overall significance, the
results in Table 6 indicate that the
probability value was 0.000 with reference to column, labelled Sig. (2-tailed). This implies that there
is a significant difference between the two scores of time 1 and 2.
There is significant difference between before and after 2015 following the
proposed paradigm for HM where the t-value is 2.39 and the degrees of freedom
(df) was 29.
After establishing the
overall significance, it was vital to compare mean values i.e. finding
out which set of scores is higher (Time 1 or Time 2). The results in Table 5
display that the mean score of HM before 2015 (Time 1) was 180.17 and the mean
score of HM after 2015 was 177.50. These results can therefore imply that there
was no a significant improvement in HM of Statistics Test scores from Time 1
before the proposed paradigm) to Time 2 after the proposed paradigm.
The effect size for
paired-samples t-test was likewise calculated because the results presented
above just tell that the difference obtained in the two sets of scores was
unlikely to occur by chance; but does not tell us much about the magnitude of
the intervention’s effect i.e. proposed paradigm. It was obtained by
calculating an effect size statistic in this study i.e. the procedure
for calculating and interpreting eta squared (one of the most commonly used
effect size statistics) as presented below:
Eta squared can be obtained using the following formula:
Eta squared = t2 /t2 + N – 1
Eta squared = (2.39)2/ (2.39)2+170-1
=5.71/5.71+169
=5.71/174.71
= .03
To interpret the eta squared values the following guidelines can be
used (from Cohen, 1988): .01=small effect, .06=moderate effect, .14=large
effect. Given the eta squared value of .03, it can be concluded that there was
a small effect, with a substantial difference in the HM scores obtained before
and after following the proposed paradigm. In other words, there is small
effect of the proposed paradigm in the HM improvement in Siha and Njombe
districts.
Table 5: Paired Samples Statistics
|
|
Mean |
N |
Std. Mean Deviation |
Std. Error Mean |
|
Pair 1 HM Time 1 |
180.17 |
170 |
5.16 |
.94 |
|
HM Time 2 |
177.50 |
170 |
5.15 |
.94 |
Table 6: Paired Samples Test
|
|
Paired Differences |
t |
df |
Sig. |
||||
|
Mean |
Std. Mean Deviation |
Std. Error Mean |
95% Confidence |
|||||
|
Lower |
Upper |
|||||||
|
Pair 1 HM Time 1- HM Time 2 |
2.67 |
2.71 |
.49 |
1.66 |
.68
|
2.394 |
29 |
.000 |
The above results
are consistent to what was previously found even after the proposed paradigm in
2014. This implies that, there was or small improvement of HM after the
proposed paradigm in 2014. For instance, Mwanyoka (2017) and IFC, 2018 established that many producers experience unorganized
marketing systems with very limited external markets and large of quantities of
honey is sold at a throw away price. The inadequate marketing of honey with
poor marketing infrastructure, packaging materials, low market prices, limited
market information and poor marketing systems for both local and foreign
markets are among the constraints of honey commercialization in Tanzania
even after the proposed paradigm in 2014 (Patterson & Moshi, 2016;Tutuba
& Vanhaverbeke, 2018).
3.4 Influence of the Proposed Paradigm on Improvement of HM
This section
addresses question three results, which aimed at examining the influence of the proposed paradigm (i.e. organ/machinery, MCC, potential market, quality honey,
packaging/branding) on improvement of HM in the surveyed districts. The MLR
results indicate that, the improvement of HM (outcome variable) was explained
by the proposed paradigm (predictor variable) by 57%. The value obtained was
.570, implying the model explained 57% of the variance in HM (see Table
7). In testing how well the regression model fitted the data, it was found
that the computed F statistics was 49.031 with an observed significance level
of 0.000. The models reached the statistical significance which was p<0.001
(see Table 7). It was predicted that, the proposed paradigm had a
significant and positive relationship with HM in the surveyed districts. The
summary of regression analysis done displays the results in Table 7.
Table 7: Influence of the Proposed
Paradigm on HM
|
|
B |
t |
Sig. |
|
(Constant) |
6.09 |
19.001 |
<.001 |
|
Availability of Organ/Machinery for HM |
.513 |
8.309 |
<.001 |
|
Availability of MCC for HM |
.417 |
5.369 |
<.001 |
|
Availability of Potential Market for HM |
.482 |
6.268 |
<.001 |
|
Availability of Quality Honey |
.351 |
6.137 |
<.001 |
|
Honey Packaging and Branding |
.347 |
6.133 |
<.001 |
|
Multiple
R |
.838a |
||
|
R
Square |
.591 |
||
|
Adjusted
R |
.57 |
||
|
ANOVA
(F, SIG.) |
49.073 (< .001) |
||
Moreover, the results confirm that the
proposed paradigm had a statistically significant and positive
relationship with HM in the surveyed districts (Beta=.513, t=8.309, p<0.001; Beta=.417, t=5.369, p<0.001;
Beta=.482, t=6.268; Beta=.351, t=6.137; Beta=.347, t=6.133). These results
dictate that the more the honey producers and other stakeholders implement the
proposed paradigm, the more they improved HM. These results can adhere to what
is suggested in several previous researches.
For example, Affognon et al.
(2015) previously found that the proposed paradigm of modern beekeeping had
positive and significant impact on honey production and marketing in the former
in Kenya. Likewise, Tarekegn and Ayele (2020) reveal that proposed “adopted
improved beehives technology” have significant and positive impact
on honey production efficiency including honey marketing. In summary, this
study goes hand in hand with other previous studies that the proposed paradigms
are significant and positive for improvement for honey production and
marketing.
4.
CONCLUSION
This study evaluated the improvement of HM in Njombe and Siha
districts following the proposed paradigm in 2014. It is concluded that, the HM
was not significantly improved despite the fact that the proposed paradigm had
the significant and positive influence on the improvement of HM in Njombe and
Siha districts. This study generally recommends that, the proposed paradigm
should be implemented accordingly for the improvement of HM in surveyed
districts and Tanzania at large.
5.
COMPETING INTERESTS
None.
6.
AUTHORS'
CONTRIBUTIONS
6.1
The
extent to which the proposed paradigm has improved HM is now established
6.2
Establishing the statistical
difference between before and after the proposed paradigm
6.3
Establishing the statistical
relationship between the proposed paradigm and HM improvement
7.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author heartedly acknowledges all stakeholders who contributed
to the complete production of the study at hand. Their contributions are highly
valued.
8.
REFERENCES
Affognon,
H.D.; Kingori, W.S.; Omondi, A.I.; Diiro, M.G.; Muriithi, B.W.; Makau, S. and Raina, S.K. (2015). Adoption of
Modern Beekeeping and its Impact on Honey Production in the Former Mwingi
District of Kenya: Assessment Using Theory-based Impact Evaluation Approach.
International Journal of Tropical
Insect Science, Vol. 35 (2), 96–102.
Cohen J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis
for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Academic. Google Scholar
fao.org.,(2014).[ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/i0842e/i0842e16.pdf];
site visited on 26/09/ 2020
https://globaledge.msu.edu/mpi;
visited on 5/11/2020
Internal Trade Centre [ITC] (2015).Honey Sector Synthesis Report
& Development Road Map in Tanzania. World Trade Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland
International Finance Corporation [IFC],
(2018). Financing Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in Tanzania, a Market
study. World Bank groups, Geneva
Match Maker Associates study in Kigoma (MMA, 2013).
Mbeiyererwa, A. G. (2014). Honey Value Chain Mapping in Njombe and Siha
Districts. The United Nations Development Programme, Dar Es Salaam.
Ministry of Natural Resources and
Tourism. (2014). Beekeeping in Tanzania: Country Situation Paper, presented
in ApiExpo Africa 2014 in Harare, Zimbabwe
Mwakatobe, A. and Mlingwa,
C. (2006). On: “Tanzania-The status of Tanzanian honey
Trade- Domestic and International Markets”; Working Paper, Tanzania Wildlife
Research Institute, Arusha, Tanzania
Mwanyoka I. (2017). Promoting Modern Beekeeping in
the East Usambara Mountains: What are the Challenges and Opportunities?. International Journal of Agriculture and
Environmental Research, Vol. 3(6), 4198-4212
Namwata,
B.M.L.; Mdundo, K.J.; and Malila, M.N. (2013) Potentials
and Challenges of Beekeeping Industry in Balang’dalalu Ward, Hanang’ District
in Manyara, Tanzania. Kivukoni Journal,
Vol. 1 (2), 75 -93
Ntenga, G. (1976). Beekeeping Development programmes in Tanzania.
In: Proceedings of
the Workshop on Apiculture in Tropical Climates; IBRA, London, pp 207:147-154.
Nyatsande, S., Andrew, C., and Innocent,
S. (2014). Beekeeping in Zimbabwe, a Paper presented at the APIEXPO; Africa
2014 conference, Harare, Zimbabwe, 6th – 11th October 2014
Nyatsande, S., Andrew, C., and Innocent, S., (2014).
Beekeeping in Zimbabwe, a Paper presented at the API-EXPO Africa 2014
conference, Harare, Zimbabwe, 6th – 11th October 2014.
Patterson, P. and Moshi, M. (2016).
Tanzania Honey Export and Standards to the European Union. Analytical Paper
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of Certificate in Specialized Course TRP 302;
International Trade Policy and Trade Law Awarded by Trade Policy
Training Centre in Africa [TRAPCA],
ArushaRUSHA, TanzaniaANZANIA.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L.
S. (2001). Principal Components and Factor Analysis. Using multivariate
statistics, 4, 582-633.
Tarekegn, K. & Ayele, A. (2020).
Impact of Improved Beehives Technology Adoption on Honey Production
Efficiency: Empirical Evidence from Southern Ethiopia. Agriculture and Food
Security Vol. 9(7), 1-13.
The Beekeeping Policy (1998). The
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Tanzania
Tutuba, N.B. & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2018). Beekeeping
in Tanzania: Wwhy is Bbeekeeping not Ccommercially Vviable in Mvomero? Afrika focus, Vol. 31(1), 213-239.
|
Cite this Article: Crn, CR (2021).
Improvement of Honey Marketing in Njombe and Siha Districts, Tanzania. Greener
Journal of Business and Management Studies, 10(1): 01-10. |