22Understanding how exposure and information affect public attitudes towards returning large 23 carnivores in Europe is critical for human-carnivore coexistence, especially for developing 24 efficient and de-escalating communication strategies. The ongoing recolonization of wolves 25 (Canis lupus) in Germany provides a unique opportunity to test the role of different 26 information sources and trust on people's attitudes towards wolves. We conducted a phone 27 survey (n=1250) and compared country-wide attitudes towards wolves with attitudes in a 28 specific region where wolves initially recolonized and have been present since 2000. In 29 particular, we investigate the relationship between information sources, trust and people's 30 attitudes while accounting for factors like knowledge, exposure and socio-cultural 31 determinants of respondents. We found significant differences in attitudes and knowledge 32 about wolves as well as in the use and frequency of information sources between the two 33 population samples. Higher knowledge, information from books and films, science-based 34 information, and higher trust in information sources related positively with positive attitudes 35 towards wolves. Comparatively, information from press or TV news was associated with 36 more negative attitudes. Providing science-based information to the public and building trust 37 in information is likely to be one measure, among others, to dampen extreme attitudes and 38 improve people's appreciation of costs and benefits of human-carnivore coexistence. 39Management of conflictual situations emerging from large carnivore recolonization in Europe 40 and beyond should consider incorporating assessments of people's use of and trust in 41 information in addition to existing tools to pave new ways for constructive human-carnivore 42 coexistence. 43

This article examines the combined influence of cognitions (i.e., impact beliefs) and affect (i.e., feelings) on normative beliefs (i.e., support for management options) about wolves and brown bears. Data were obtained from stratified random face-to-face interviews (n=1,611). The survey was conducted in the Abruzzo Lazio and Molise National Park (central Italy), where people have a long history of coexistence with large carnivores. Knowledge was hypothesized to moderate the relationships of beliefs and feelings on support for management actions. Path analyses supported the role of affect in mediating perceived impact beliefs and support for the protection of large carnivores. Knowledge moderated these relationships in the case of wolves but not brown bears. Residents of the national park had more knowledge about bears than wolves, which might partly explain both the stronger effect that knowledge had on the affective component and its lack of a moderating effect on the bear model. Overall, our findings show the positive attitude of residents toward large carnivores and support the idea of affect being more important than cognition in predicting normative beliefs.

Giraffe populations have declined in abundance by almost 40% over the last three decades, and the geographic ranges of the species (previously believed to be one, now defined as four species) have been significantly reduced or altered. With substantial changes in land uses, loss of habitat, declining abundance, translocations, and data gaps, the existing geographic range maps for giraffe need to be updated. We performed a review of existing giraffe range data, including aerial and ground observations of giraffe, existing geographic range maps, and available literature. The information we collected was discussed with and validated by subject‐matter experts. Our updates may serve to correct inaccuracies or omissions in the baseline map, or may reflect actual changes in the distribution of giraffe. Relative to the 2016 International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List Assessment range map, the updated geographic range maps show a 5.6% decline in the range area of all giraffe taxa combined. The ranges of Giraffa camelopardalis (northern giraffe) and Giraffa tippelskirchi (Masai giraffe) decreased in area by 37% (122432 km2) and 4.7% (20816 km2) respectively, whereas 14% (41696 km2) of the range of Giraffa reticulata (reticulated giraffe) had not been included in the original geographic range map and has now been added. The range of Giraffa giraffa (southern giraffe) showed little overall change; it increased by 0.1% (419 km2). Ranges were larger than previously reported in six of the 21 range countries (Botswana, Ethiopia, Mozambique, South Sudan, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe), had declined in seven (Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Malawi, Niger, Uganda, and Zambia) and remained unchanged in seven (Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, eSwatini, Namibia, Rwanda, Somalia, and South Africa). In Kenya, the ranges of both Giraffa tippelskirchi and Giraffa camelopardalis decreased, but the range of Giraffa reticulata was larger than previously believed. Our updated range maps increase existing knowledge, and are important for conservation planning for giraffe. However, since rapid infrastructure development throughout much of Africa is a driver of giraffe population declines, there is an urgent need for a continent‐wide, consistent and systematic giraffe survey to produce more accurate range maps, in order to inform conservation and policy planning.

No abstract