<|begin_of_text|><|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|>You are an expert on climate change, human mobility and migration. Answer the question truthfully.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|>Here are the title and abstract of a scientific paper probably related to climate change, human mobility and migration..
Title:"Implications of the shared socioeconomic pathways for tiger (Panthera tigris) conservation."
Abstract:"Over the last century, numbers of wild tigers (Panthera tigris) have crashed, while human populations have boomed. Here we investigate future trajectories of human population within tiger range through analysis of the shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs). These five pathways describe urban, rural and total population distributions by decade through 2100, based on plausible but contrasting scenarios of economic, education, migration, and urbanization policy. In 2010 approximately 57 million people lived in regions defined as tiger conservation landscapes (or TCLs); 8% of sympatric people lived in towns and cities that occupied 4% of tiger range. We show that tigers could share these same geographies with as few as 40 million (30% decline compared to 2010) or as many as 106 million people (an increase of 85%) by 2100. Those populations could be as much as 64%, or as little as 17%, urbanized, depending on the pathway. Urban areas are likely to expand, displacing between 6 and 22% of tiger's current range, depending on how urban growth is managed. Human population density thresholds compatible with tigers vary by region, from 140 persons/km(2) in the Indian subcontinent, to 10 persons/km(2) in the Russian Far East and northern China. SSP3, a future where nations indulge regional rivalries, would make conservation more difficult, whereas SSP1, with a focus on well-managed urbanization and education, could help relieve pressures. Tigers are a conservation-reliant species and will likely remain so through the 21st century, therefore we suggest coupling continued site-level protection with efforts to develop constituencies for conservation in Asia's burgeoning cities.."
I have six questions you need to answer.
Q1: Is this article is about 'human migration mobility': 1 = yes; 0 = no. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q2: What drivers of migration and mobility does the article study? 0 = 'other', 1 = 'climate', 2 = 'environment', 3 = 'economic', 4 = 'conflict', 5 = 'political', 6 = 'social', 7 = 'family'. Answer with a number or a sequence of numbers separated by commas. Do not give a textual explanation. 

Q3: What is the overall sentiment of the article?:0 = 'neutral', 1 = 'negative', 2 = 'positive'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q4: What type of climate or environmental keywords are explicitly mentioned?:  0 = 'none', 1 = 'algal blooms', 2 = 'infestation', 3 = 'infectious diseases', 4 = 'ocean acidification', 5 = 'sea ice', 6 = 'acid rain', 7 = 'drought', 8 = 'cold wave', 9 = 'heat wave', 10 = 'glacial', 11 = 'wildfire', 12 = 'air pollution', 13 = 'biodiversity loss', 14 = 'coastal erosion', 15 = 'land degradation', 16 = 'deforestation', 17 = 'desertification', 18 = 'water pollution', 19 = 'diebacks', 20 = 'permafrost loss', 21 = 'sand mining', 22 = 'sea level rise', 23 = 'earthquake', 24 = 'tsunami', 25 = 'volcanic', 26 = 'flood', 27 = 'avalanche', 28 = 'landslide', 29 = 'downburst', 30 = 'thunderstorm', 31 = 'sandstorm', 32 = 'haze', 33 = 'storm', 34 = 'cyclone', 35 = 'blizzard', 36 = 'hail', 37 = 'snow', 38 = 'tornado', 39 = 'wind', 40 = 'hurricane', 41 = 'typhoon', 42 = 'other'. Answer with a number or a sequence of numbers separated by commas. Do not give a textual explanation. 

Q5: What discipline does the article belong to?: 0 = 'other', 1 = 'social science', 2 = 'natural science', 3 = 'arts and humanities', 4 = 'multidiscipline and interdiscipline'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q6: Does the article apply quantitative and/or statistical analysis?: 0 = 'no', 1 = 'yes'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Use the following template: 

Q1 = [];
Q2 = [];
Q3 = [];
Q4 = [];
Q5 = [];
Q6 = [].<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|>Answer:
Q1 = [0];
Q2 = [];
Q3 = [];
Q4 = [];
Q5 = [];
Q6 = [1].
Implications of the shared socioeconomic pathways for tiger (Panthera tigris) conservation
Over the last century, numbers of wild tigers (Panthera tigris) have crashed, while human populations have boomed. Here we investigate future trajectories of human population within tiger range through analysis of the shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs). These five pathways describe urban, rural and total population distributions by decade through 2100, based on plausible but contrasting scenarios of economic, education, migration, and urbanization policy. In 2010 approximately 57 million people lived in regions defined as tiger conservation landscapes (or TCLs); 8% of sympatric people lived in towns and cities that occupied 4% of tiger range. We show that tigers could share these same geographies with as few as 40 million (30% decline compared to 2010) or as many as 106 million people (an increase of 85%) by 2100. Those populations could be as much as 64%, or as little as 17%, urbanized, depending on the pathway. Urban areas are likely to expand, displacing between 6 and 22% of tiger's current range, depending on how urban growth is managed. Human population density thresholds compatible with tigers vary by region, from 140 persons/km(2) in the Indian subcontinent, to 10 persons/km(2) in the Russian Far East and northern China. SSP3, a future where nations indulge regional rivalries, would make conservation more difficult, whereas SSP1, with a focus on well-managed urbanization and education, could help relieve pressures. Tigers are a conservation-reliant species and will likely remain so through the 21st century, therefore we suggest coupling continued site-level protection with efforts to develop constituencies for conservation in Asia's burgeoning cities.