<|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:"Is hydropower worth it? Exploring amazonian resettlement, human development and environmental costs with the Belo Monte project in Brazil."
Abstract:"Nations in the Global South have turned to massive hydropower projects to provide for the energy needs of their growing economies. Large-scale hydropower projects cause untold environmental damage to river ecosystems, to fish biodiversity, and displace millions of people globally. Much research documents these impacts, yet we do not know if these populations support the development of hydropower. In this paper, we aim to understand how direct experiences with resettlement might influence the support or opposition to hydropower development considering energy justice, particularly the restorative and procedural tenets, as a motivating framework. Our research is based on social survey data from a population resettled during the construction of the Belo Monte dam in the Brazillian Amazon. Results from partial proportional odds models suggest that a slim majority feel that hydropower is worth the cost, yet even this support declines as perceived impacts increase. These populations hold nuanced views and are not uniformly negative about dams, regretting the negative outcomes for them but believing the government discourse that the energy needs of the country may require them to sacrifice for the larger good. Support for hydropower as well as energy injustices might vary considerably across communities that are impacted differentially by Belo Monte.."
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 = [1];
Q2 = [2];
Q3 = [];
Q4 = [];
Q5 = [1];
Q6 = [1].
Is hydropower worth it? Exploring amazonian resettlement, human development and environmental costs with the Belo Monte project in Brazil
Nations in the Global South have turned to massive hydropower projects to provide for the energy needs of their growing economies. Large-scale hydropower projects cause untold environmental damage to river ecosystems, to fish biodiversity, and displace millions of people globally. Much research documents these impacts, yet we do not know if these populations support the development of hydropower. In this paper, we aim to understand how direct experiences with resettlement might influence the support or opposition to hydropower development considering energy justice, particularly the restorative and procedural tenets, as a motivating framework. Our research is based on social survey data from a population resettled during the construction of the Belo Monte dam in the Brazillian Amazon. Results from partial proportional odds models suggest that a slim majority feel that hydropower is worth the cost, yet even this support declines as perceived impacts increase. These populations hold nuanced views and are not uniformly negative about dams, regretting the negative outcomes for them but believing the government discourse that the energy needs of the country may require them to sacrifice for the larger good. Support for hydropower as well as energy injustices might vary considerably across communities that are impacted differentially by Belo Monte.