Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2026 | 18(2): 28329–28342

 

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print) 

https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.10272.18.2.28329-28342

#10272 | Received 24 November 2025 | Final received 01 February 2026 | Finally accepted 05 February 2026

 

 

Local knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices provided by the Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala Pennant, 1769 (Aves: Ciconiidae) in northern India: insights for conservation

 

Yashmita-Ulman 1   & Manoj Singh 2       

 

1 Department of Silviculture & Agroforestry, College of Horticulture & Forestry, Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh 224229, India.

2 Department of Zoology, Kalinga University, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492012, India.

1 yashmita-agf@nduat.org, 2 manoj.singh@kalingauniversity.ac.in (corresponding author)

 

 

Editor: H. Byju, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.  Date of publication: 26 February 2026 (online & print)

 

Citation: Yashmita-Ulman & M. Singh (2026). Local knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices provided by the Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala Pennant, 1769 (Aves: Ciconiidae) in northern India: insights for conservation. Journal of Threatened Taxa 18(2): 28329–28342. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.10272.18.2.28329-28342

 

Copyright: © Yashmita-Ulman & Singh 2026. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publication.

 

Funding: This study was carried out through funding provided by the Wildlife Trust of India and Fondation Segre.

 

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

 

Author details: Dr. Yashmita-Ulman, assistant professor in the Department of Silviculture & Agroforestry, ANDUAT, Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. She specialises in the field areas of agroforestry and wildlife conservation and management. Dr. Manoj Singh, assistant professor in the Department of Zoology, Kalinga University, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. He is specialized in bird acoustics and wildlife conservation.

 

Author contributions: Y-U conceived and designed the study, conducted fieldwork, and wrote the final draft of the manuscript. MS performed the field work, compiled the data and analyzed the data. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

 

Acknowledgements: We thank the funding agencies, Wildlife Trust of India and Fondation Segre, and the villagers for their permission and constant support in conducting this survey.

 

 

 

Abstract: Understanding the knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of the local communities towards the target species before implementing any awareness-based programmes is essential for the success and long-term protection of the species.  No studies have yet been conducted on local knowledge, attitudes, perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, threats and possible recommendations for conservation of the Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala in northern India. To fill this gap, a study was conducted in August–September 2024 in villages of Etawah District, Uttar Pradesh, India, where Painted Stork builds nests in farmland in human-dominated areas. The study employed a questionnaire survey, containing both closed and open-ended questions, administered to 200 respondents. All the respondents identified the species, and a majority knew its local name, breeding ecology, foraging ecology, and population trend. A majority of the people (52%) liked the species, supported conservation of the species (51%), felt the need for awareness programmes (52%), and were ready to participate in nest monitoring training (47%) & awareness programmes (58%). At the same time, a majority of the people were reluctant to report hunting (48%), reluctant to take the injured birds to veterinary doctors (46%), and lacked knowledge on the bird’s conservation status (64%). People perceived 12 ecosystem services and five ecosystem disservices provided by Painted Stork, with pest control (50%) being the highest cited service and crop destruction (72%) the most cited disservice. According to the respondents, the highest threat to the species is wetland loss (59%). A majority recommended that conservation efforts should focus on organizing awareness programmes (52%) and implementing wetland management and conservation (50%). Furthermore, respondents believed the community should take the initiative in these efforts (48%). This study emphasizes intensified awareness programs, wetland conservation and management and protection of nesting trees, among other measures, to ensure the conservation of this species outside protected areas. It provides the essential baseline for conservationists, researchers, and policy makers to design effective conservation and management strategies involving local communities and policies for research and conservation of Painted Stork.

 

Keywords: Etawah, Farhadpura, human-dominated landscapes, nesting trees, questionnaire surveys, recommendations, socio-demography characteristics, threats, Usrai, Uttar Pradesh. 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Anthropogenic factors such as deforestation, urbanization, encroachment, human-wildlife negative interactions have driven the species to the brink of extinction and led to wildlife population declines (Taylor-Brown et al. 2019; Lewis et al. 2021; Lees et al. 2022). The scientific community has tried to invent many different possibilities, such as creating wildlife sanctuaries (Gorbunov et al. 2019; Volenec & Dobson 2020), restoration of degraded areas (Possingham et al. 2015; Volis 2019), and ex situ conservation (Canessa et al. 2015). But focusing on these techniques is not sufficient, as many of the threatened species are found in human-dominated landscapes (Bracebridge et al. 2013; Yashmita-Ulman et al. 2018; 2021a,b; Ceballos et al. 2019). The co-existence of people with wildlife is ultimately seen as a necessity to achieve wildlife conservation (Chakanyuka & Utete 2022), emphasizing the importance of the community’s ecological knowledge and attitudes towards wildlife conservation (Gupta et al. 2023; Manigandan et al. 2024).

As locals interact with native species routinely, they have a good insight (Romero-Bautista et al. 2020) into the aspects of species distribution, breeding, diet, associated problems, services and threats (Gaston et al. 2018; Kross et al. 2018) as is the case with the Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala, which is commonly seen foraging and building nesting colonies in the wetlands (Yashmita-Ulman 2022, 2023; Yashmita-Ulman & Singh 2022, 2025) and agricultural fields (Yashmita-Ulman & Singh 2021) in Uttar Pradesh. Understanding the local knowledge and involving the communities in the decision-making process can make them actively participate in conservation programmes. This can lead to the effective design of species conservation management strategies (Katuwal et al. 2021; Messina et al. 2023). Benefit sharing related to conservation-related activities can inculcate positive attitudes towards the species (Bajracharya et al. 2007), whereas events such as crop-raiding, livestock depredation, which are the costs related to conservation, develop negative attitudes towards the species (Mehta & Heinen 2001; Walpole & Goodwin 2001; Yashmita-Ulman et al. 2020). Evidence shows that communities hold negative attitudes towards birds such as Sarus Crane (Nevard et al. 2019), raptors (Dabone et al. 2022), Black-necked Crane (Zhong et al. 2023), for crop damage, making noise (Leong et al. 2020), and spreading disease (Green & Elmberg 2014). Certain communities also appreciate birds for their ecosystem services, such as decorative value (Baya Weaver, Yashmita-Ulman et al. 2017), scavenging (vultures, Morales-Reyes et al. 2018), pest-control (owls, Iniguez-Gallardo et al. 2024), aesthetic value (Sarus crane, Bhattarai et al. 2025), and revere them for their cultural values (Hooded vultures, Dabone et al. 2022). Therefore, the attitudes of the community towards the species need to be understood as these play an important role in the acceptance or rejection of conservation-related activities and management practices (Winter et al. 2005; Byju et al. 2024). The attitude of people towards a species is influenced by factors such as age, caste, gender, size of landholding, education, religion, and distance from forests  (Arjunan et al. 2006; Ntuli et al. 2019). These attitudes can also be changed through organizing effective conservation programmes based on the prior understanding of the knowledge and attitudes of the community towards the species. For effective implementation of any community-based conservation activity, the first step is to understand the local knowledge, perceptions and attitudes of the local people towards the species in question.

The Painted Stork, locally known as Dhek, is an ibis-like stork with a long, tapering and drooping bill, 93–102 cm in length, and it weighs around 2–3.5 kg. It is distributed across southwestern Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka, and into Indochina and southern China. It is found in shallow freshwater ecosystems such as lakes, marshlands, rivers, paddy fields, and wetlands (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2025). It is a locally migratory species in Uttar Pradesh, and its breeding season lasts from August/September to February. The global population was estimated to be around 25,000 birds in 1994 (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2025). The bird species has been upgraded to Schedule II, Part B of the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2022 (WPAA 2022) from Schedule IV of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WPA 1972). Though the IUCN status of this bird is ‘Least Concern’ (IUCN 2025), it locally faces the threat of hunting, habitat loss, and degradation (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2025). This species is mainly hunted for its meat and eggs (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2025) as it forms a cheap source of protein for the local communities. In Uttar Pradesh, the Painted Stork prefers wetlands and agricultural fields for nesting (Tiwary et al. 2014) and foraging, which are present in human-dominated landscapes, not under the direct control of the forest department but under the community governance, increasing the chances of hunting and habitat destruction that go unreported. The most effective way to protect this species and its nesting sites is to integrate its conservation and management with local communities and their livelihoods.

Many studies have been conducted in different countries across the world that document the local knowledge and attitudes of people towards bird species conservation (Jacobson et al. 2003; Mmassy & Roskaft 2013; Cortes-Avizanda et al. 2018; Gaston et al. 2018; Kross et al. 2018; Katuwal et al. 2021, 2024; Zhong et al. 2023). In India, a handful of such studies exist on wildlife (Mir et al. 2015; Talukdar & Gupta 2018; Karanth et al. 2019; Gupta et al. 2023; Bhaskaran & Nilon 2025), and birds in particular (Acharya et al. 2009; Aiyadurai & Banerjee 2020; Aiyadurai et al. 2023; Tiwari et al. 2023; Das et al. 2025), but there are none specifically on Painted Stork. Considering the knowledge gap on the subject and the species, this study aims to assess: 1) people’s ecological knowledge on Painted Stork, 2) their attitudes towards the species, 3) people’s perception of threats faced by the species, 4) perceptions on ecological services and disservices provided by the Painted Stork, and 5) possible recommendations to conserve the species as suggested by the community.

 

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 

Study area

The field sites for this study are centred around the villages of Farhadpura (26.888° N & 79.161° E) and Usrai (Usrahar) (26.919° N & 79.034° E) (Figure 1), both situated within the Barhpura Block of the Etawah District in southwestern Uttar Pradesh. These localities are part of the Ganga-Yamuna Doab—a region defined by its position between the two major rivers, the Yamuna and its main tributary, the Chambal (KVK 2025). The district covers an area of approximately 2,311 km², with the district headquarters in Etawah Town (GoUP 2025). The district experiences a sub-humid climate, with an average annual rainfall of about 792 mm, most of which falls between June and September during the southwest monsoon (KVK 2025). Temperatures peak in May, reaching daily maxima averaging up to 42 °C. Much of the area is agricultural, dominated by wheat, rice, and sugarcane crops (KVK 2025), but remnant patches of natural vegetation—especially along water bodies, agricultural fields and communal/village lands—serve as critical nesting sites for waterbirds. The Sarsai Nawar Wetland, recognized as a Ramsar site, lies in proximity and underlines the conservation importance of this region for waterbirds.

The Painted Stork is a colonial nester. In both the villages, these birds build nests on the trees of Terminalia arjuna and Ficus religiosa found in agricultural fields (Image 1).

Method

The questionnaire surveys were carried out for two months, August–September 2024. Before starting with the formal data collection, an introductory informal group discussion was conducted with the residents of both the villages with the help of the village headman or gaon pradhan. Then, a preliminary pilot survey was carried out by interviewing 40 respondents, based on which a few improvements were made in the questionnaires. The respondents were also asked to list the benefits and problems caused by the Painted Stork. Based on these answers, a list of 12 ecosystem services and five ecosystem disservices were included in the final questionnaires. The ecosystem services were further classified into three sections, namely, regulation & maintenance, cultural, and provisioning services (Zhong et al. 2023). The improvised questionnaire had a set of closed and open-ended questions (See supplementary file S1) administered to 100 randomly selected respondents (as the nesting trees were in or around agricultural fields) from each village, making a total of 200 respondents. The questions asked were pertaining to 1) knowledge on Painted Stork (species identification, local name, habitat, nesting trees, breeding season, foraging locations, diet, population fluctuations over the years, conservation status of species), 2) attitudes towards Painted Stork (thought of it as a harmful species, whether they liked the species, supported its conservation, whether they cut its nesting trees, opinions on need for awareness programmes, willingness to participate in nest monitoring training programmes and awareness programmes, report hunting, take injured birds to veterinary doctor), 3) threats faced as perceived by people, 4) recommendations to conserve the species as suggested by people, and 5) perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices provided by the species (respondents were asked to choose between the 12 ecosystem services namely pest control, eats snakes and nutrient cycling under regulation and maintenance ecosystem service, medicinal value and meat value under provisioning ecosystem service, sense of pride, existence value, aesthetic value, conservation value, conservation flagship, educational value and ecotourism under cultural ecosystem service and five ecosystem disservices namely destroys crops, eat fishes, makes noise, makes area dirty and spreads diseases). To establish whether the participants could identify the species and its local name, a photo-elicitation approach was used during the surveys. Before the start of every interview, the verbal consent of the respondents was taken, and they were informed that the data would be used only for research purposes. The interviews were conducted in the local Hindi language using simple local terms. Each interview took approximately 40 minutes to complete. For data analysis, the respondent’s knowledge about the species was evaluated by marking one point for each correctly answered question and zero points for each wrong answer.

 

 

Results and Discussion

 

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

Out of the 200 respondents, 66% (n = 132) were male, and 34% (n = 68) were female (Table 1). The respondents’ ages ranged from 16–85 years, with the majority falling within the age range of 25–54 (Table 1). The majority of the respondents were engaged in agriculture and received secondary level education till 12th class (Table 1). 

 

Respondent’s ecological knowledge about the species

All the respondents were able to identify the Painted Stork, and more than half knew its local name (Figure 2). While most respondents could not correctly identify the bird’s habitats, they were knowledgeable about the breeding season and preferred nesting trees of the species. The respondents mentioned that the Painted Storks arrive during the Diwali season (i.e., September/October) and avoid nesting on sacred Peepal Ficus religiosa trees used for prayer. Most of the respondents knew that wetlands and agricultural lands were the species’ most preferred foraging sites, and that the species fed on fish, snakes, crustaceans, snails, shrimps, crabs, insects, and frogs. The familiarity of the local people with this species might be because the Painted Stork has an attractive appearance, a huge body and builds nests in and around farmlands and wetlands, close to human habitations. Similarly, many other studies have reported that people possess good knowledge of birds around them (Mmassy & Roskaft 2013; Katuwal et al. 2024; Das et al. 2025; Nima et al. 2025). The findings also report declines in the population of species (Figure 2), which might be due to the comparison with their past experiences. Interestingly, the population trend of this species shows that its population is increasing (BirdLife International 2025), suggesting a local decline in the species population. The majority of the people were unaware of the conservation status of the species and did not know its habitat (Figure 2), which also shows the knowledge gap. Some studies have reported that educated people have greater awareness of the conservation status of birds and their habitat (Ortega-Lasuen et al. 2023; Katuwal et al. 2024).

 

Respondent’s attitudes towards the species

Amongst the respondents, 44% (n = 87) perceived the Painted Stork as a harmful species (Figure 3), primarily because its excreta fell on and destroyed crops. The majority of villagers supported species conservation and cherished the birds (Figure 3), as they were accustomed to living with them like family members and appreciated their elegant appearance. Furthermore, the respondents agreed that awareness programmes were necessary and expressed readiness to participate in nest monitoring and awareness programmes (Figure 3), consistent with findings from a study on the Sarus Crane in Nepal (Bhattarai et al. 2025). Nearly an equal number of people agreed and disagreed about taking injured birds to the veterinarians, with many refusing to report hunting (Figure 3). This reluctance likely stems from a desire to avoid legal repercussions. Consequently, hunting in villages remains underreported, causing this threat to rise slowly.

 

Perceived threats to the species

According to the opinion of the respondents, the highest threat faced by the Painted Stork is wetland loss and hunting (Figure 4). Similar threats have been reported by Herzon & Mikk (2007), Stanton et al. (2018) and Katuwal et al. (2021). Villagers confirmed that most wetlands were encroached upon for agricultural expansion and that this species was hunted for meat. During our field visits, some people were seen pelting stones at the chicks in the nest. There are reports that confirm this species is hunted for food (BirdLife International 2025). Although we observed one instance where a tree was cut down to avoid nesting, while a few villagers confirmed this during surveys, the majority denied it.

 

Perceived ecosystem services and disservices

In all, the respondents recognised 12 ecosystem services (three regulation and maintenance ecosystem services, two provisioning ecosystem service and seven cultural ecosystem services) and five ecosystem disservices (Figures 5 & 6). The most-cited regulation and maintenance ecosystem service was pest control; the most-cited provisioning ecosystem service was meat value, and the most-cited cultural ecosystem service was ecotourism (Figure 5). Because the diet of the Painted Stork consists of agricultural pests – including insects, snails (Ali & Ripley 1987; Parasharya & Naik 1990; Sridhar et al. 2002; Urfi 2002), and snakes (Urfi 1988) – humans might appreciate this bird’s role as a natural predator. The positive attitude towards this species might also have been developed as people acknowledged the ecosystem services provided by the Painted Stork (Whelan et al. 2008; Mariyappan et al. 2023). The most-cited ecosystem disservices were crop destruction and fish predation (Figure 6). Bird excreta that drop on nesting trees and crops below (observed by Yashmita-Ulman) form a white layer on leaves, disrupting photosynthesis and reducing crop yield. Since the species is primarily piscivorous (Urfi 2011), this predation on fish—a food source for local people—results in human-wildlife negative interactions. The number of services and disservices mentioned by each respondent ranged 1–3, with the majority citing one ecosystem service in each category (Figures 7, 8, & 9) and two ecosystem disservices (Figure 10).

 

Conservation implications

The majority of respondents suggested conservation measures such as organizing awareness programs, wetland management and conservation, establishment of protected areas, and hunting control (Figure 11). The respondents strongly believed that the community should take the initiative for species conservation, consistent with findings from the study on Sarus Crane in Nepal (Bhattarai et al. 2025).

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The ecological knowledge, attitudes, and conservation recommendations of the local people revealed through this study increase the chances of positive impacts from awareness activities in this area. This positive mindset is necessary for species conservation in human-dominated landscapes. The government, along with the non-governmental organizations working in this region, must take immediate steps to spread awareness and provide incentives to the people involved in the conservation of this species. Policies must be framed such that people are encouraged to protect and plant the preferred nesting trees of the Painted Stork, such as Ficus religiosa, Syzygium cumini, and Terminalia arjuna report hunting activities and manage wetlands sustainably. This study provides the first-ever insight into people’s knowledge, attitudes, perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices provided by the Painted Stork from northern India. This study provides the baseline data for further field-based research aimed at understanding the interaction dynamics between birds and humans outside protected areas. 

 

Table 1. Socio-demography of the respondents who participated in the interviews.

 

Variables

Categories

Number (N)

Percentage (%)

Gender

Male

132

66

 

Female

68

34

Age

Early working age (16–24)

37

18

 

Prime working age (25–54)

78

39

 

Mature working age (55–64)

61

31

 

Elderly age group (> 65)

24

12

Educational Attainment

Illiterate (no formal education)

29

15

 

Primary level (< 8 class)

46

23

 

Secondary level (9–12 class)

74

37

 

Bachelor & above

51

25

Occupation

Agriculture

113

57

 

Business

34

17

 

Government job

20

10

 

Private job

29

14

 

Others

4

2

 

 

For figures, images, Appendix - - click here for full PDF

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Acharya, B.K., B. Chettri & L. Vijayan (2009). Indigenous knowledge of Lepcha community for monitoring and conservation of birds. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 8(1): 65–69.

Aiyadurai, A. & S. Banerjee (2020). Bird conservation from obscurity to popularity: a case study of two bird species from Northeast India. GeoJournal 85: 901–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-09999-9

Aiyadurai, A., S. Banerjee, Y. Patil & S. Joshi (2023). Human-bird relations in India — An interdisciplinary Study. Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar and Environmental Humanities Research Group, 55 pp. 

Ali, S. & S.D. Ripley (1987). Compact Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan. Oxford University Press, Delhi, India, 737 pp.

Arjunan, M., C. Holmes, J-P. Puyravaud & P. Davidar (2006). Do developmental initiatives influence local attitudes toward conservation? A case study from Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management 79: 188–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.06.007

Bajracharya, S., G.B. Gurung & K. Basnet (2007). Learning from community participation in conservation area management. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 6: 54–66. https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/JFL/article/view/2325

Bhaskaran, V. & C.H. Nilon (2025). Exploring perceptions and attitudes towards wildlife in urban home gardens in Bangaluru, India. Urban Ecosystems 28: 107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-025-01723-5

Bhattarai, B.P., H.B. Katuwal, S. Regmi, A. Nepali, R.N. Suwal, R. Acharya, K.C. Sabin, B. Aryal, K. Tamang, B. Rawal, A. Basnet, B.D. Baral, S. Devkota, S. Parajuli, N. Regmi, P. Kandel, B. Subedi, H.S. Giri, G.S. Gurung, J.L. Belant & H.P. Sharma (2025). Knowledge, attitudes, and conservation threats to globally vulnerable Sarus cranes in Lumbini province, Nepal. Discover Conservation 2: 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44353-025-00034-2

BirdLife International (2025). Species factsheet: Mycteria leucocephala. https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/painted-stork-mycteria-leucocephala. Accessed on 15.xi.2025.

Bracebridge, C., T.R.B. Davenport, V.F. Mbofu & S.J. Marsden (2013). Is There a Role for Human-Dominated Landscapes in the Long-Term Conservation Management of the Critically Endangered Kipunji (Rungwecebus kipunji)? International Journal of Primatology 34: 1122–1136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-013-9719-3

Byju, H., H. Maitreyi, S. Ravichandran & N. Raveendran (2024). Avifaunal diversity and conservation significance of coastal ecosystems on Rameswaram Island, Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 16(12): 26198–26212. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9248.16.12.26198-26212

Canessa, S., S.J. Converse, M. West, N. Clemann, G. Gillespie, M. McFadden, A.J. Silla, K.M. Parris & M.A. McCarthy (2015). Planning for ex-situ conservation in the face of uncertainty. Conservation Biology 30(3): 599–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12613

Ceballos, G., P.R. Ehrlich, J. Pacheco, N. Valverde-Zuniga & G.C. Daily (2019). Conservation in human-dominated landscapes: Lessons from the distribution of the Central American squirrel monkey. Biological Conservation 237: 41-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.06.008

Chakanyuka, T. & B. Utete (2022). Adaptive co-management, co-existence or just wildlife conservation? Case study of the human and Nile crocodile Crocodylus miloticus conflicts in Ngezi Dam, Mashonaland West, Zimbabwe. African Journal of Ecology 60: 759–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12974

Cornell Lab of Ornithology (2025). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Birds of the World. https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/paisto1/cur/introduction#distrib. Accessed on 17.xi.2025.

Cortes-Avizanda, A., B. Martin-Lopez, O. Ceballos & H.M. Pereira (2018). Stakeholders perceptions of the Endangered Egyptian vulture: insights for conservation. Biological Conservation 218: 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.09.028

Dabone, C., A. Oueda, L.J. Thompson, J.B. Adjakpa & P.D.M. Weesie (2022). Local perceptions and sociocultural value of Hooded Vultures Necrosyrtes monachus in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Ostrich 93(4): 233–247. https://doi.org/10.2989/00306525.2022.2120558

Das, S., A. Srivastava & U. Hore (2025). Farmer’s knowledge on bird conservation in the agricultural landscape of Gangetic plain. Ornithology Research 33: 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43388-025-00231-6

Gaston, K.J., D.T.C. Cox, S.B. Canavelli, D. Garcia, B. Hughes, B. Maas, D. Martinez, D. Ogada & R. Inger (2018). Population abundance and ecosystem service provision: the case of birds. Bioscience 68: 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy005

Gorbunov, M.A., A.V. Fadeeva, V.B. Shirshikov, P.A. Matveev, O.V. Popova, M.Y. Mitrofanova, J.Y. Bakaeva & N.A. Mashkin (2019). Nature protection potential of wildlife sanctuary: protection and preservation of its ecological biodiversity. Ekoloji 28(107): 5033–5037.

GoUP (2025).  Government of Uttar Pradesh. https://etawah.nic.in/about-district/ Accessed on 10.xi.2025.

Green, A.J. & J. Elmberg (2014). Ecosystem services provided by waterbirds. Biological Reviews 89: 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12045

Gupta, T., E.J. Milner-Gulland, A. Dias & D. Karnad (2023). Drawing on local knowledge and attitudes for the conservation of critically endangered rhino rays in Goa, India. People and Nature 5: 645–659. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10429

Herzon, I. & M. Mikk (2007). Farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity and their willingness to enhance it through agri-environment schemes: a comparative study from Estonia and Finland. Journal for Nature Conservation 15: 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2006.08.001

Iniguez-Gallardo, V., F. Reyes-Bueno, I. Gonzalez-Coronel, J. Freile & L. Ordonez-Delgado (2024). Perceptions, knowledge, and emotions about owls in southern Ecuador. Journal of Ethnobiology 44(2): 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/02780771241250129

IUCN (2025). The IUCN Red list of threatened species: search results for ‘Birds’. International Union for Conservation of Nature.  https://www.iucnredlist.org/search?query=Birds&searchType=species. Accessed on 25.x.2025.

Jacobson, S.K., K.E. Sieving, G.A. Jones & A. Van Doorn (2003). Assessment of farmer attitudes and behavioral intentions toward bird conservation on organic and conventional Florida farms. Conservation Biology 17: 595–606. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01472.x

Karanth, K.K., S. Jain & E. Weinthal (2019). Human-wildlife interactions and attitudes towards wildlife and wildlife reserves in Rajasthan, India. Oryx 53(3): 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001028

Katuwal, H.B., H.P. Sharma, P. Rokka, N.K. Das & R-C. Quan (2024). Knowledge, attitudes and conservation challenges for the Lesser Adjutant in Nepal. Global Ecology and Conservation 49: e02795.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02795

Katuwal, H.B., M. Zhang, H.S. Baral, H.P. Sharma & R.-C. Quan (2021). Assessment of farmers’ knowledge and perceptions towards farmland birds show the need of conservation interventions. Global Ecology and Conservation 27: e01563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01563

Kross, S.M., K.P. Ingram, R.F. Long & M.T. Niles (2018). Farmer perceptions and behaviors related to wildlife and on-farm conservation actions. Conservation Letters 11(1): e12364. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12364

KVK (2025).  Krishi Vigyan Kendra Etawah. https://etawah.kvk4.in/district-profile.php. Accessed on 10.xi.2025.

Lees, A.C., L. Haskell, T. Allinson, S.B. Bezeng, I.J. Burfield, L.M. Renjifo, K.V. Rosenberg, A. Viswanathan & S.H.M. Butchart (2022). State of the world’s birds. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 47(1): 231–260. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112420-014642

Leong, R.A.T., T.K. Fung, U. Sachidhanandam, Z. Drillet, P.J. Edwards & D.R. Richards (2020). Use of structural equation modelling to explore influences on perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices attributed to birds in Singapore. Ecosystem Services 46: 101211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101211

Lewis, J.S., S. Spaulding, H. Swanson, W. Keeley, A.R. Gramza, S. VandeWoude & K.R. Crooks (2021). Human activity influences wildlife populations and activity patterns: implications for spatial and temporal refuges. Ecosphere 12(5): e03487. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3487

Manigandan, S., H. Byju & P. Kannan (2024). Harmonizing ecology and society: an integrated analysis of vulture conservation in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 16(6): 25330–25344. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8915.16.6.25330-25344

Mariyappan, M., M. Rajendran, S. Velu, A.D. Johnson, G.K. Dinesh, K. Solaimuthu, M. Kaliyappan & M. Sankar (2023). Ecological role and ecosystem services of birds: a review. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change 13(6): 76–87. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2023/v13i61800

Mehta, J.N. & J.T. Heinen (2001). Does community-based conservation shape favorable attitudes among locals? An empirical study from Nepal. Environmental Management 28: 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010215

Messina, T., R. Figueira & J.M.L. Santos (2023). Integrating local and ecological knowledge to assess the benefits of trees for ecosystem services: a holistic process-based methodology. Ecosystem Services 63: 101556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101556

Mir, Z.R., A. Noor, B. Habib & G.G. Veeraswami (2015). Attitudes of local people towards wildlife conservation: a case study from Kashmir valley. Mountain Research and Development 35(4): 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-15-00030.1

Mmassy, E.C. & E. Roskaft (2013). Knowledge of birds of conservation interest among the people living close to protected areas in Serengeti, Northern Tanzania. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management 9(2): 114–122.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2013.788566

Morales-Reyes, Z., B. Martin-Lopez, M. Moleon, P. Mateo-Tomas, F. Botella, A. Margalida, J.A. Donazar, G. Blanco, I. Perez & J.A. Sanchez-Zapata (2018). Farmer perceptions of the ecosystem services provided by scavengers: what, who and to who. Conservation Letters 11(2): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12392

Nevard, T.D., I. Leiper, G. Archibald & S.T. Garnett (2019). Farming and cranes on the Atherton Tablelands, Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 25: 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC18055

Nima, P., T. Dorji, M.S. Rana & T. Dorji (2025). Knowledge, attitude, perceived threats and conservation challenges of the critically endangered White-bellied Heron, Ardea insignis, in Bhutan. Global Ecology and Conservation 58: e03484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2025.e03484

Ntuli, H., S.C. Jagers, A. Linell, M. Sjostedt & E. Muchapondwa (2019). Factors influencing local communities’ perceptions towards conservation of transboundary wildlife resources: the case of the Great Limpopo Trans-frontier Conservation Area. Biodiversity and Conservation 28: 2977–3003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01809-5

Ortega-Lasuen, U., O. Pedrera, E. Telletxea, O. Barrutia & J.R. Diez (2023). Secondary students’ knowledge on birds and attitudes towards conservation: evaluation of an environmental education program. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20: 5769. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20105769

Parasharya, B.M. & R.M. Naik (1990). Ciconiiform birds breeding in Bhavnagar city, Gujarat, pp. 429–445. In: Daniel, J.C. & J.C. Serrao (eds.). Conservation in Developing Countries: Problems and Prospects. Bombay Natural History Society and Oxford University Press, Mumbai.

Possingham, H.P., M. Bode & C.J. Klein (2015). Optimal Conservation Outcomes Require Both Restoration and Protection. PLoS Biology 13(1): e1002052. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002052

Romero-Bautista, Y.A., A.I. Moreno-Calles, F. Alvarado-Ramos, M. Reyes Castillo & A. Casas (2020). Environmental interactions between people and birds in semiarid lands of the Zapotitlan Valley, Central Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 16: 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-020-00385-1

Sridhar, S., A.K. Chakravarthy, K. Srihari & N.A. Prakash (2002). Priorities for conservation of Kokre Bellur heronry in Karnataka, south India, pp. 123–127. In: Rahmani, A.R. & G. Ugra (eds.). Birds of Wetlands and Grasslands: Proceedings of the Salim Ali Centenary Seminar on Conservation of Avifauna of Wetlands and Grasslands. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai.

Stanton, R.L., C.A. Morrissey & R.G. Clark (2018). Analysis of trends and agricultural drivers of farmland bird declines in North America: a review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 254: 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.11.028

Talukdar, S. & A. Gupta (2018). Attitudes towards forest and wildlife, and conservation-oriented traditions, around Chakrashila Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam, India. Oryx 52(3): 508–518. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001307

Taylor-Brown, A., R. Booth, A. Gillett, E. Mealy, S.M. Ogbourne, A. Polkinghorne & G.C. Conroy (2019). The impact of human activities on Australian wildlife. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0206958. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206958

Tiwari, G., P. Pandey, R. Kaul & R. Singh (2023). Farmer’s perception of the ecosystem services provided by diurnal raptors in arid Rajasthan. PeerJ 11: e15996. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.15996

Tiwary, N.K., B.B. Sharma & A.J. Urfi (2014). Two new nesting colonies of Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala from northern India. Indian Birds 9(4): 85–88.

Urfi, A.J. (1988). Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala (Pennant) swallowing a snake. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 86: 96.

Urfi, A.J. (2002). Waders and other wetland birds on Byet Dwarka Island, Gulf of Kutch, Western India. Wader Study Group Bulletin 99: 31–34.

Urfi, A.J. (2011). Foraging ecology of the Painted Stork (Mycteria leucocephala): A review. Waterbirds 34(4): 448-–456. https://doi.org/10.1675/063.034.0407

Volenec, Z.M. & A.P. Dobson (2020). Conservation value of small reserves. Conservation Biology 34(1): 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13308

Volis, S. (2019). Conservation-oriented restoration – a two for one method to restore both threatened species and their habitats. Plant Diversity 41: 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pld.2019.01.002

Walpole, M.J. & H.J. Goodwin (2001). Local attitudes towards conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation 28: 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892901000169

Whelan, C.J., D.G. Wenny & R.J. Marquis (2008). Ecosystem services provided by birds. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences 1134: 25–60. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1439.003

Winter, S.J., K.J. Esler & M. Kidd (2005). An index to measure the conservation attitudes of landowners towards Overberg Coastal Renosterveld, a critically endangered vegetation type in the Cape Floral Kingdom, South Africa. Biological Conservation 126: 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.06.015

WPA (1972).  Wildlife (Protection) Act. https://content.dgft.gov.in/Website/append10.pdf. Accessed on 10.xi.2025.

WPAA (2022).  Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act. https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/acts_parliament/2022/The%20Wild%20Life%20(Protection)%20Amendment%20Act,%202022.pdf. Accessed on 10.xi.2025.

Yashmita-Ulman & M. Singh (2021). Bird composition, diversity and foraging guilds in agricultural landscapes: A case study from eastern Uttar Pradesh, India.      Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(8): 19011–19028. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7089.13.8.19011-19028

Yashmita-Ulman & M. Singh (2022). Avifaunal diversity in unprotected wetlands of Ayodhya district, Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 14(8): 21561–21578. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7067.14.8.21561-21578

Yashmita-Ulman & M. Singh (2025). A preliminary assessment of avifaunal diversity in Parwati Arga Bird Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 17(11): 27976–27984. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.10160.17.11.27976-27984

Yashmita-Ulman (2022). Bird diversity in riverscapes of Ayodhya district, Uttar    Pradesh. Indian Journal of Ecology 49(1): 280–287. https://doi.org/10.55362/IJE/2022/3518

Yashmita-Ulman (2023). Bird diversity of Jagdishpur Jheel: An unprotected               wetland in Ayodhya district, Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Ecology 50(5) (S1): 1794–1800. https://doi.org/10.55362/IJE/2023/4139

Yashmita-Ulman, A. Kumar & M. Sharma (2017). Traditional homegarden           agroforestry systems: habitat for conservation of Baya Weaver Ploceus philippinus (Passeriformes: Ploceidae) in Assam, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 9(4): 10076–10083. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3090.9.4.10076-10083

Yashmita-Ulman, A. Kumar & M. Sharma (2018). Agroforestry systems as    habitat for avian species: Assessing its role in conservation. Proceedings of Zoological Society 71: 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-016-0198-3

Yashmita-Ulman, M. Singh, A. Kumar & M. Sharma (2020). Negative human-wildlife interactions in traditional agroforestry systems in Assam, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(10): 16230–16238. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5754.12.10.16230-16238

Yashmita-Ulman, M. Singh, A. Kumar & M. Sharma (2021a). Agroforestry   systems: a boon or bane for mammal conservation in northeastern India? Proceedings of Zoological Society 74: 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-020-00335-5

Yashmita-Ulman, M. Singh, A. Kumar & M. Sharma (2021b). Conservation of     wildlife diversity in agroforestry systems in eastern Himalayan biodiversity hotspot. Proceedings of Zoological Society 74: 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-021-00361-x

Zhong, L., T. Li, Y. Li, T. Zou, T. Yu & C. Dai (2023). Local farmers’ perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices provided by the Black-necked Crane (Grus nigricollis) and their conservation implications. Global Ecology and Conservation, 46: e02614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02614