Socio‐psychological determinants of beekeeper conflict with bee‐eaters

Abstract Mitigating conservation conflict is challenging for wildlife managers, particularly with a growing human population. Past work investigating coexistence with wildlife has prioritized megafauna, overlooking many smaller species that cause substantial damage, yet also play important ecological roles. Our study addresses this gap by examining conflict between three native bee‐eater bird species and beekeepers in Iran through a web‐based survey distributed across beekeeper social media networks. Using the theory of planned behavior to conceptually guide our study, we sought to understand beekeepers' use of lethal control methods to address conflict with bee‐eater species. Our binomial generalized linear model revealed that years of beekeeping experience (odds ratio [OR] = 1.48), subjective norms (OR = 0.58), behavioral intention (OR = 0.75), and taking beekeeping courses (OR = 0.52) were significant predictors of beekeepers' use of lethal control methods. We also found that compared to those with no economic dependence on beekeeping, individuals with very low (OR = 0.28) and low (OR = 0.34) dependence on beekeeping were less likely to report using lethal control methods. Our findings indicated more experienced beekeepers were more likely to kill bee‐eaters. Beekeepers who reported stronger subjective norms around not killing bee‐eaters were significantly less likely to implement lethal control and those who expressed an intention to shoot bee‐eaters if they approached beehives were more likely to have previously used lethal control methods. Our findings suggest a need for better training of less experienced beekeepers to promote non‐lethal control methods effective at preventing bee depredation and support in provisioning bee‐eater‐resistant supplies for them. Parallel community engagement initiatives aimed at shifting subjective norms toward coexistence with wildlife would also lessen bee‐eater mortality. Our findings illustrate that conflict with smaller species can be polarizing as megafauna, especially when livelihoods are perceived or actually threatened by such species.