Research Paper

INTRODUCTION

Grey Crowned-Crane (Balearica regulorum) is classified as Endangered on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Birdlife International 2022) and on Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES; CITES 2022) as a result of sharply declining populations (Morrison and Dodman 2019). Illegal capture, including the removal of crane chicks from the wild, and habitat loss are considered the main threats to crane survival (Olupot 2016). Other threats include intentional or unintentional poisoning (Olupot 2016), collision with powerlines (Morrison and Dodman 2019), and human disturbance at nests (Morrison 2015). While Grey Crowned-Cranes in most parts of Africa, including Tanzania, are well protected within the national parks (Morrison 2015), cranes throughout their African range commonly occur outside of protected areas. Like Grey Crowned-Cranes, higher concentrations of other wildlife in East Africa are found in rangelands (Kideghesho 2013, Ogutu et al. 2016) composed of protected areas, human settlements, farming, and livestock grazing. A recent study on wildlife in rangelands in Kenya indicated a decrease in wildlife within protected areas and an increase outside protected areas (Ogutu et al. 2016). On the contrary, wildlife in Tanzania has experienced a decline both within and outside protected areas (Mtui, 2014). Further, many national parks in East Africa have been isolated due to increased human populations, agricultural development, and human settlement (Salerno et al. 2017), which have added to human wildlife conflicts (Sarleno et al. 2017) and subjected wildlife to illegal hunting (Tranquilli et al. 2014).

In Kenya and Uganda, Grey Crowned-Cranes are mainly found in wetlands located outside protected areas (Kibuule and Pomeroy 2015, Nachuha et al. 2015, Wamiti et al., 2021), where they roost, breed, and feed (Nachuha et al. 2015, Pomeroy 2021). Cranes commonly use farmlands in South Africa (Farakayi et al. 2016) and Kenya (Wamiti et al. 2021) and, in Tanzania, cranes use agricultural areas in Kapunga rice fields where nearly 200 cranes were sighted in 2015 in the Mbarali District of the Mbeya region (B. Amulike, personal observation). Considering that large numbers of Grey Crowned-Cranes use areas outside of protected areas, there is high potential for conflict with people. Thus, it is important to understand the attitudes and perceptions of local people toward these cranes so that effective crane conservation programs can be developed. This is because stakeholders’ interests and acceptance of wildlife at the local level are critical for successful wildlife conservation and management programs (Frank and Bath 2012).

Several studies have investigated the attitudes and perceptions of famers toward various species of cranes, including: the Brolga (Antigone rubicunda) and Australian Sarus Crane (Antigone gillae; Nevard et al. 2018), Blue Crane (Anthropoides paradiseus; van Velden et al. 2016), and Sandhill Crane (Antigone canadensis; Barceló et al. 2012). Other studies have reported on the awareness, knowledge, and attitudes of communities toward the Whooping Crane (Grus americana; Lessard et al. 2018), Black Crowned-Crane (Balearica pavonina; Gemeda et al. 2016) and Indian Sarus Crane (Grus antigone antigone; Saiyed et al. 2020). In East Africa, there are few documented studies on local people’s attitudes and perceptions toward Grey Crowned-Cranes. Specific studies that have involved human perceptions include a study by Nyadoi et al. (2020) in Uganda that investigated the perceptions of local people on the population and habitat trends of Grey Crowned-Cranes. In Kenya, Mutunga and Mitau (2017) studied the perceptions of local people on Grey Crowned-Crane conservation. To date, little research has been conducted on the human perceptions toward Grey Crowned-Cranes in Tanzania. Considering that peoples’ values of wildlife can differ substantially between cultures, information on peoples’ perceptions of Grey Crowned-Cranes is needed for developing effective crane conservation programs in Tanzania, such as a national single species action plan. Thus, the goal of this study was to assess the perceptions and attitudes of local people toward Grey Crowned-Cranes in four regions in Tanzania. Specifically, we wanted to assess the following: (1) whether local people knew if cranes occurred in their villages or other areas, (2) if cranes caused any crop damages (and which crops were affected), (3) how local people interact with Grey Crowned-Cranes, (4) attitudes toward Grey Crowned-Crane conservation, and (5) the extent of illegal crane trade, if any.

METHODS

Study area

The study was conducted in 42 villages within 12 districts in 4 regions (Arusha, Kilimanjaro, Singida, and Mbeya) in Tanzania (Table 1; Fig. 1) from February–December 2015. The main economic activities, agricultural crops, natural vegetation types, and timing of the dry and wet seasons vary among the four regions (Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, 2014). In the Arusha region in northeastern Tanzania, the main economic activity is agriculture, both large and small scale. About 38% of the population are farmers, followed by livestock keepers, service workers, and store workers, while fishing is the least practiced economic activity. The major crops grown in areas we sampled were maize, bananas, millet, potatoes, wheat, barley, sunflower, and rice. The dry season is from early June–mid-October and the rain (short and long) season is mid-October through the end of May or early June. The major natural vegetation types include bushlands, wooded grasslands, and open grasslands. The Kilimanjaro region, situated to the east of the Arusha region, shares the same conditions in the wet and dry seasons. Farming is the most common occupation (65% of households). Maize is the most common crop followed by unspecified crops, cassava, bananas, and rice. Livestock keeping contributes significantly to the economy and engages nearly 55% of households. The Singida region in central Tanzania is a semi-arid region with two well-defined seasons, a short rain season from December–March and a dry season from April–November. About 90% of the people depend on agriculture with maize, sorghum, and millet as the principal crops; rice and cowpeas are the least grown. The most common type of natural vegetation is thickets. Located in southwestern Tanzania, the Mbeya region has highly variable rainfall, with a May–October dry season and an October–May rainy season when most cultivation occurs. In our survey area, nearly 78% of households engage in agriculture, including rice (68% of cultivated areas), beans, maize, potatoes, sweet potatoes, sorghum, cassava, bananas, groundnuts, simsim, vegetables, and other fruits. Other crops considered cash crops include tea, tobacco, coffee, wheat palm oil, pyrethrum, and sunflower. Natural vegetation is primarily savanna with tropical wooded grasslands. In all the study regions, most wetlands outside protected areas are heavily degraded, primarily due to dredging of water from lakes and rivers, fishing, livestock grazing, and human settlement nearby wetlands. There are a few pockets of wetlands outside protected areas. Using Geographical Information Systems (GIS), the authors calculated the average size of wetlands available in each region, focusing on the study wards. In Arusha, Kilimanjaro, Singida, and Mbeya regions, the average size of wetlands combining all study wards per region was 44 km, 11 km, 52 km, and 66 km, respectively. In the Arusha region, the size of swamp areas, flooded areas, and open water averaged 0.9 km², 9 km² in Kilimanjaro, 19 km² in Singida, and 0.05² in Mbeya.

Sampling design and data analysis

We selected survey areas and villages based on the occurrence of wetlands, rice cultivation, and grasslands based on the reports by Morrison (2015), who reported that Grey Crowned-Cranes prefer wetlands for breeding and adjacent grasslands as foraging areas. Although we used maps to locate the wetlands in the regions, we also relied on regional/district natural resources officers to identify unmapped wetlands in their regions. We used one-on-one interviews and selected village residents at random to interview. Interviews within a village typically took 1–2 days per village depending on population numbers and people’s interest in participating. This led to a great variation in the number of respondents among the surveyed villages. Very sparsely populated areas took longer to interview due to travel time. Residents to interview were chosen by contacting a person in the first household we found when entering a village. We then sampled residents at every third to fifth household, subject to participant consent. The sampling of a female or male for each household was alternated. For example, if we sampled a female in the first household, we made sure to sample a male in the third household. When residents declined to participate in the interview process for reasons such as being busy and uninterested, we continued to sample every third household in the village until we reached our targeted goal of 30 individuals (15 males and 15 females). Given the diverse conditions, this goal was not met in all villages.

Survey questionnaires contained two sets of questions, open- and closed-ended (Presser 1990, Geer 1998). All interviews were conducted in Swahili by native Tanzanians familiar with the language and who had previous experience conducting interviews in Tanzania. Upon encountering a resident, we first asked if they were interested in taking part in an interview on cranes. If so, we then introduced the participant to the nature of our research on Grey Crowned-Cranes. For confidentiality, we did not ask the names of participants. Survey procedures and questions (Appendix 1) followed a protocol approved by the University of Massachusetts Amherst Institutional Review Board (IRB Protocol ID 2018-4823) and were permitted by the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (Ref. No. TWRI/RG/VOI.37/88/66).

Before analyzing the data, surveys were entered in a spreadsheet, corrected for typing errors, and coded. Data entry errors were examined by generating frequencies to determine the responses for each item. Since open-ended questions frequently yield similar responses answered in different ways, these responses were coded based on their similarities and presented these data as percentages. For example, a survey question inquiring about the reasons for crane conservation was coded as “they have a right to live,” “They are attractive/colorful,” “so the next generation can see them,” “they are not harmful to humans,” “they help with tourism,” etc. Questions with multiple answers sometimes yielded percentages greater than 100%. Analyses were performed in Microsoft Excel and R Version 4.0 (R Core Team 2020).

Relative frequencies were used to determine the proportion of respondents who knew if cranes occurred in their villages, the proportions of farmers who said cranes were damaging to their crops, and the types of crops that were damaged. To determine how respondents interacted with Grey Crowned-Cranes, respondents were asked what they and other people in their village do when they encounter cranes. Relative frequencies summarized the proportion of respondents who answered that they “do nothing,” “watch/enjoy,” “photograph,” “chase/scare,” “trap/scare,” and “trap it/keep it” when they encountered a crane. This question was used to determine how respondents interacted with Grey Crowned-Cranes. We also used relative frequencies to determine the proportion of respondents who said cranes “have a right to live,” “are attractive/colorful,” “need to be protected,” “so the next generation can see them,” “are not harmful to humans/crops,” “help with tourism,” “I can use their feathers,” “are destructive of crops,” and “are of no benefit to me” in answer to whether cranes needed to be protected. This question was posed to evaluate respondents’ attitudes toward the species. We also used relative frequencies to determine the percent number of respondents who knew if the crane trade was persistent in their villages and who was involved in the illegal trade.

RESULTS

Respondents’ demography and occupation

We interviewed a total of 570 residents in 42 villages (Table 1), of which 44% were female and 56% male. The age of most of the interviewees was 20–40 (44%) or 41–60 years old (40%), regardless of gender. The majority of respondents were farmers (51%), followed by livestock keepers (30%), businesspeople (13%), government employees (4%), and other (2%; fishing [n = 5], traditional healing [1], and undescribed occupation [8]). Farm sizes ranged from < 1–10 ha, and the main type of crops grown included rice (80%), maize (33%), and beans, bananas, tomatoes, and other (undefined) crops (6–12% each), although many farmers grew more than one crop (thus percent of crops grown exceeds 100%). Almost all farmers with small farms (< 2 ha) grew rice (83%), while those with larger farm sizes (2–10 ha) grew mostly maize (48%) and tomatoes (33%). Of the farmers not reporting farm size (60% of respondents), almost all farmed rice (99%) and some maize (33%).

Local people’s awareness of Grey Crowned-Cranes in their villages

Of the 570 people interviewed, 318 reported having seen cranes (51% of females versus 60% of males). Of the significant occupations represented, 64% of 288 farmers interviewed more frequently reported seeing cranes, followed by 44% of 169 livestock keepers and 35% of 75 businesspeople interviewed. However, of the only 24 government employees and 14 from other occupations, 83% and 93% reported seeing cranes most often, respectively.

Crop damage by cranes

To evaluate the extent of crop depredation by cranes, we asked farmers if Grey Crowned-Cranes caused damage to their crops. Of the 173 farmers who said they had seen cranes in their villages and responded to this question, 91% indicated that cranes did not cause crop damage. For farmers reporting damage (6%), farmers with mixed or other types of crops (maize, beans, bananas, and tomatoes) reported the highest frequency of damage (9%). Comparatively, farmers who cultivated rice reported the lowest frequency (1%). Three percent of the farmers responded that they did not know if cranes caused crop damage.

Local people’s interactions with Grey Crowned-Cranes

Of the 299 respondents who answered the question “What do you do when you see a crane?” the majority indicated that they “do nothing” (58%), but others indicated watch/enjoy (25%) and photograph (13%; Table 2). Only 3% indicated that they “chase/scare” the cranes, and 1% said they “trap it/keep it.” The response, “do nothing” had higher scores across all occupations: farmers (63%, n = 164), livestock (46%, n = 74), business (54%, n = 26), government (74%, n = 26), and other (58%, n = 12). About 4% of 299 responses about chasing and trapping cranes came from farmers (6%, n = 164) and government employees (4%, n = 26). Of the 312 respondents who answered the question about what other people in their communities did when they saw cranes, 48% responded, “nothing” followed by 45% who said they “did not know.” Of the 4% of 312 respondents who answered the question about what other people in their village do when they see a Grey Crowned-Crane, both “trap it/keep it” (6%) and “chase/scare the birds” (1%) responses were low. There were few differences in responses across occupations (Table 3).

Attitudes toward Grey Crowned-Crane conservation

Of the 236 of 318 respondents to the questions about how cranes are valued in their community, 95% did not ascribe a value for Grey Crowned-Cranes, but 3% (8 farmers) noted the importance of cranes in traditional medicine food (1%, 1 “other” occupation and 2 farmers) and feathers (1 farmer). Among the 292 of 318 respondents who answered the question about whether it was important for cranes to have a safe place to live, 97% answered in the affirmative (Table 4). Overall, respondents believed that Cranes “have a right to live” (27%), “need protection” (25%), “help with tourism” (15%), and “are attractive/colorful” (15%). Less than 1% of 292 respondents stated that cranes “are destructive to crops.”

Extent of Grey Crowned-Crane trade

Of the 318 villagers asked “Have you ever seen anyone catching cranes/chicks or collecting their eggs?”, most (94%) indicated that they had not, but 6% percent reported seeing others catching cranes (n = 19; 10% of 177 farmers and 8% of 12 persons working in fishing, traditional healing, and undescribed). There were 20 reports from these respondents indicating that crane trade was taking place in their village, including 17 indicating that local residents were catching cranes and three indicating that foreigners/tourists were doing so. There were also 15 reports indicating that local residents were involved in buying live cranes and 2 reports identifying involvement of foreigners/tourists in this trade. None of the 318 respondents who had seen Grey Crowned-Cranes in their villages and wards were aware of the trade moratorium for the birds.

DISCUSSION

Considering that Grey Crowned-Cranes commonly use agricultural areas and grasslands, it is not surprising that farmers and livestock keepers reported seeing cranes more frequently than respondents in other occupations. Farmers frequently encountered cranes because the species may be attracted to rice paddies and other types of crops grown in the surveyed regions. Livestock keepers tend to cover larger areas while herding in grasslands and wetland habitats, key suitable areas for Grey Crowned-Cranes. This may help to explain why a large proportion of livestock keepers saw cranes more frequently. Despite the high frequency of cranes in agricultural areas, most farmers reported that Grey Crowned-Cranes did not cause crop damage. In our study, the few farmers reporting crop damage indicated that the damage occurred in a mixture of crops, such as maize, beans, bananas, and tomatoes, rather than in rice fields. Similarly, in Uganda, Grey Crowned-Cranes caused damage to a variety of crops including beans, maize, sweet potatoes, millet, peas, rice, groundnuts, cabbage, sorghum, and cassava (Olupot et al. 2010), with beans frequently sighted. In Zimbabwe, Grey Crowned-Cranes were reported to cause significant damage to maize (Fakarayi et al. 2018). A study by Hemminger et al. (2022) documented that maize was frequently found in large amounts in all species of cranes, which includes the Grey Crowned-Cranes.

In our study areas, most of the farmers grew rice, yet only a small proportion reported damage by Grey Crowned-Cranes. This may further indicate that Grey Crowned-Cranes are also attracted to rice paddies to forage on other items rather than only rice. In Kenya, based on a study by Mutunga and Mitau (2017), the majority of the local people reported cranes feeding mostly on frogs, while a few said cranes fed on rice. Farmers in Kenya were more worried about cranes trampling rice seedlings than consuming the seeds (Mutunga and Mitau 2017). In Uganda, crop damage by cranes was not considered a threat to farmers, and overall conflicts between Grey Crowned-Cranes and farmers were insignificant. Nyadoi (2020) also reported that communities in Uganda appreciated that Grey Crowned-Cranes were not destructive to their crops. A study by Gemeda et al. (2016) on Black Crowned-Cranes, a species closely related to Grey Crowned-Cranes, indicated that the species was not a pest to crops except maize.

To investigate the threats faced by the Grey Crowned-Cranes, we asked respondents to comment on what they do when they encountered the species. Overall, rural people interviewed in Tanzania displayed positive attitudes toward Grey Crowned-Cranes across all occupations and in the way they interacted with cranes. A small proportion indicated they would like to chase and trap the species. The chasing and trapping reports came mostly from farmers who have experienced crop damage by Grey Crowned-Cranes.

Relatively few of the respondents placed no value on Grey Crowned-Cranes in our study, while the vast majority were supportive of crane conservation for a wide variety of non-utilitarian purposes. In contrast, Stokke et al. (2019) reported that Grey Crowned-Cranes are valued in Tanzania for food, traditional medicine, and traditional dances. Overall, respondents in our study had positive attitudes about Cranes and the availability of places for them to live. These positive perceptions in interviewed communities suggest that additional community education about crane conservation would be well received. Several studies have indicated that a species is more likely to receive conservation attention from local people when the species is perceived positively. Lessard et al. (2018) reported that participants with a positive attitude and greater knowledge of Whooping Cranes in America were more likely to support a crane conservation fund, should one be established. In Uganda, Grey Crowned-Cranes were more likely to breed in areas where residents had positive attitudes toward the species (Olupot et al. 2010). A small proportion showed less support for crane conservation as they have had negative interactions with the species, including crop damage. It is common for people to show less support for conservation when they have had negative interactions with wildlife (Van Velden 2016, Hariohay et al. 2018).

While our findings indicate that relatively few people catch cranes/chicks or collect eggs, we suspect this illegal activity may well be substantially underreported. While the number of reports of crane trade we received seems relatively low, crane trade is still taking place in Tanzania. Any level of take would negatively impact the species population, whose reproductive and conservation status is not well known. During our interviews, people appeared uncomfortable disclosing trade information, presumably for fear of being jailed. Further, a few community members assumed we were crane traders and offered to catch cranes in exchange for money. Almost all illegal crane trade occurred in the Mbarali District of the Mbeya Region. Local residents, as opposed to foreigners/tourists, were reported to engage in catching and selling them. Our results showed that cranes were being sold to witch doctors, mainly as aphrodisiacs. The head of cranes was highest in demand for use in traditional medicine, with one specimen reportedly selling for US$120. Further, our study indicates that trade was still occurring two years after CITES had suspended trade in Grey Crowned-Cranes in Tanzania. Respondents in our study were unaware of the moratorium on trade in Grey Crowned-Cranes, which may help to explain why the trade was still ongoing after suspension.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the threats facing a species and how it is perceived by the local residents who share its ecosystem is critical to creating future conservation plans. Our study provides insights into respondents’ awareness of Grey Crowned-Cranes and how they perceive the species. Also, the study provides insights into the species’ illegal trade and conflicts with the farmers. About half of the local people interviewed were aware of Grey Crowned-Cranes in their villages. Farmers encountered Grey Crowned-Cranes more frequently compared to other occupations. The majority of the farmers indicated that cranes were not pests to crops, and that cranes were more destructive to crops such as maize and beans. Although reported crop depredation by Grey Crowned-Cranes appears to be low in the areas we surveyed, it is still essential to work with local communities to mitigate potential conflicts for this endangered species. Even low levels of illegal trade and retaliatory killing of cranes by farmers may well exacerbate its already declining population in Tanzania. This underscores the need to conduct further studies on the Grey Crowned-Crane population and its feeding ecology in farmland areas and to further investigate crop depredation. Overall, there was a positive relationship between cranes and local people in the surveyed areas. This positive perception toward the species suggests that the local people may support future Grey Crowned-Crane conservation initiatives.

All the local people interviewed in our study regions were unaware of the moratorium on the trade of Grey Crowned-Cranes. Further, our study indicates that trade in Grey Crowned-Cranes was ongoing and that the demand was prevalent in the Mbarali District in Mbeya Region. This level of unawareness and demand for the species further reinforce the critical need to better educate local people about the prohibitions against crane trade and the protected status of cranes. Grey Crowned-Cranes have the potential to contribute to tourism and local development in areas where they occur. We suggest that the Government of Tanzania and other local and international environmental organizations develop Grey Crowned-Crane conservation programs in crane stronghold areas, such as the populations in and outside the Ngorongoro Conservation Area and the rice farms in Mbarali District. Our study was limited to four regions. Therefore, we recommend studies on Grey Crowned-Crane distribution, threats, and population to cover other regions in Tanzania. We also recommend that the Government of Tanzania formulate laws and polies that will govern this endangered species.

LITERATURE CITED

Barceló, I., J. C. Guzmán-Aranda, F. Chávez-Ramírez, and L.A. Powell. 2012. Rural inhabitant perceptions of sandhill cranes in wintering areas of Northern Mexico. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17(4):301-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2012.668610

BirdLife International. 2022. Species factsheet: Balearica regulorum. http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/grey-crowned-crane-balearica-regulorum

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Flora and Fauna (CITES). 2022. Appendices I, II and III. CITES Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland. https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2023/E-Appendices-2023-05-21.pdf

Fakarayi, T., C. Chirara, K. Mukwashi, and I. Magunje. 2018. Mitigating human-crane conflict in Driefontein Grasslands, Central Zimbabwe: a test of scarecrow methods. Pages 196-199 in J. E, Austin, K. L. Morrison, and J. T. Harris, editors. Cranes and agriculture: a global guide for sharing the landscape. International Crane Foundation Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA.

Frank, B., and A. Bath. 2012. Does it matter where people live? Wildlife management across protected area boundaries. JSAMPA 1:12-21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272403589_DOES_IT_MATTER_WHERE_PEOPLE_LIVE_WILDLIFE_MANAGEMENT_ACROSS_PROTECTED_AREA_BOUNDARIES

Geer, J. G. 1998. What do open-ended questions measure? Public Opinion Quarterly. 52:365-371. https://doi.org/10.1086/269113

Gemeda, D. O., A. A. Minstro. D. H. Feyessa, A. D. Sima, and T. M. Gutema. 2016. Community knowledge, attitude and practice towards black crowned crane (Balearica pavonina L.) conservation in Chora Boter district of Jimma Zone, Ethiopia. Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment 8(4):40-48. https://doi.org/10.5897/JENE2015.0549

Government of the United Republic of Tanzania. 2014. Basic demographic and socio-economic profile. National Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Finance, Da-es-salaam and Office of Chief Government Statistician, Ministry of State, President’s Office, State House and Good Governance, Zanzibar.

Hariohay, K. M., R. D. Fyumagwa, J. R. Kideghesho, and E. Røskaft. 2018. Awareness and attitudes of local people toward wildlife conservation in the Rungwa Game Reserve in Central Tanzania. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 23(6):503-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2018.1494866

Hemminger, K., H. König, J. Månsson, S. D. Bellingrath-Kimura, and L. Nilsson. 2022. Winners and losers of land use change: a systematic review of interactions between the world's crane species (Gruidae) and the agricultural sector. Ecology and Evolution. 12(3):e8719. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8719

Kibuule, M., and D. Pomeroy. 2015. Avian mortality rates on a power line near Kampala, Uganda. Scopus 34:52-55. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/scopus/article/view/111991

Kideghesho, J., A. A. Rija, K. A. Mwamende, and I. S. Selemani. 2013. Emerging issues and challenges in conservation of biodiversity in the rangelands of Tanzania. Nature Conservation 6:1-29. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.6.5407

Lessard, S. K., W. C. Morse, C. A. Lepczyk, and E. Seekamp. 2018. Perceptions of Whooping Cranes among waterfowl hunters in Alabama: using specialization, awareness, knowledge, and attitudes to understand conservation behavior. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 23(3):227-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1414335

Morrison, K. L., and T. Dodman. 2019. Grey Crowned Crane (Balearica regulorum). Pages 261-272 in C. M. Mirande and J. T. Harris, editors. Crane Conservation Strategy. International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA. https://savingcranes.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/crane_conservation_strategy_web_2019.pdf

Morrison, K., editor. 2015. International single species action plan for the conservation of the grey crowned crane (Balearica regulorum). AEWA Technical Series No. 59. Bonn, Germany.

Mtui, D. T. 2014. Evaluating landscape and wildlife changes over time in Tanzania’s protected areas. Dissertation, University of Hawaii, Manoa, Honolulu, USA.

Mutunga, J., and M. Mitau. 2017. A habitat perspective to conservation of the Grey Crowned Crane (Balearica regulorum gibbericeps) in the agro-ecosystems landscapes of central Kenya. African Bird Club, Cambridge, UK. https://www.africanbirdclub.org/sites/default/files/2017%20-%20Grey%20Crowned-crane%20survey%20-%20Kenya%20-%20James%20Mutunga.pdf

Nachuha, S., J. Muheebwa-Muhoozi, D. Ndibaisa, M. Kibuule, and D. Pomeroy. 2015. Grey crowned cranes Balearica regulorum in urban areas of Uganda. Scopus 34:48-51. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/50105219

Nevard, T. D., I. Leiper, G. Archibald, and S. T. Garnett. 2018. Farming and cranes on the Atherton Tablelands, Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 25(2):184-192. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC18055

Nyadoi, P., L. S. Ogola, H. Kyakyo, G. Tayebwa, J. B. L. Okullo, and T. Aramu. 2020. Grey Crowned Crane and Shoebills conservation status and linkage to livelihoods of Lake Victoria Shores adjacent communities in Mayuge District, Eastern Uganda. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection 8:175-191. https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2020.810013

Ogutu, J. O., H. P. Piepho, M. Y. Said, G. O. Ojwang, L. W. Njino, S. C. Kifugo, and P. W. Wargute. 2016. Extreme wildlife declines and concurrent increase in livestock numbers in Kenya: what are the causes? PLoS ONE 11(9):e0163249. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163249

Olupot, W. 2016. Grey Crowned Crane threat assessment around the wetlands of eastern Uganda. Ostrich 87(3):263-270. https://doi.org/10.2989/00306525.2016.1214931

Olupot, W., H. Mugabe, and A. J. Plumptre. 2010. Species conservation on human-dominated landscapes: the case of Crowned Crane breeding and distribution outside protected areas in Uganda. African Journal of Ecology 48(1):19-125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2009.01091.x

Pomeroy, D. 2021. Grey Crowned Cranes Balearica regulorum are gregarious rather than social. Scopus 41(1):45-47. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/scopus/article/view/204531

Presser, S. 1990. Measurement issues in the study of social change. Social Forces 68(3):856-868. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/68.3.856

R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.r-project.org/

Saiyed, S. A., S. S. Malek, and H. B. Soni. 2020. Local people perception towards conservation and management of sarus crane (Grus antigone antigone L.) in Central Gujarat Region. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 9(8):2592-2604. https://www.ijcmas.com/9-8-2020/S.%20A.%20Saiyed,%20et%20al.pdf

Salerno, J., C. A. Chapman, J. E. Diem, N. Dowhaniuk, A. Goldman, C. A. MacKenzie, P. A. Omeja, M. W. Palace, R. Reyna-Hurtado, S. J. Ryan, and J. Hartter. 2017. Park isolation in anthropogenic landscapes: land change and livelihoods at park boundaries in the African Albertine Rift. Regional Environmental Change 18(3):913-928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1250-1

Stokke, B. G., F. Fossøy, C. R. Jackson, R. May, F. J. Magige, V. Ndibalema, P. S. Ranke, M. Shilereyo, and E. Røskaft. 2019. Biodiversity in areas of different land use. AfricanBioServices. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5c6fbf67c&appId=PPGMS

Tranquilli, S., M. Abedi-Lartey, K. Abernethy, F. Amsini, A. Asamoah, C. Balangtaa, S. Blanke, E. Bouranga, T. Breuer, T. M. Brnic, et al. 2014. Protected areas in tropical Africa: Assessing threats and conservation activities. PLoS ONE 9:e114154. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114154

van Velden, J. L., T. Smith, and P. G. Ryan. 2016. Cranes and crops: investigating farmer tolerances toward crop damage by threatened blue cranes (Anthropoides paradiseus) in the Western Cape, South Africa. Environmental Management 58:972-983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0768-1

Wamiti, W., N. Gichuki, D. A. Sigana, P. Njoroge, G. Nowald, and D. Fox. 2021. Population, flocking behaviour and habitat selection of the Grey Crowned Crane Balearica regulorum at Lake Ol’ Bolossat basin, Kenya. Scopus 41(1):13-23. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/scopus/article/view/204528