<|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:"Understanding the relationship between environmental change and migration: The development of an effects framework based on the case of northern Ethiopia."
Abstract:"Empirical work on the relationship between environmental stress and human migration has blossomed over the last 10 years. While such work has provided important insights into this relationship, there has been, to date, limited effort expended on generating a generalisable framework for apprehending such interactions. This paper seeks to address this deficit. Based on semi-structured interviews in two sending and four receiving areas in northern Ethiopia, it explores dominant mobility narratives among populations whose livelihoods are exposed to a range of environmental stresses. Analysis of these narratives corroborates findings from other empirical studies on the subject, highlighting how the impact of environmental stress on human mobility can only be understood within the context in which it occurs. To this end the paper attempts to generate a typology of interactions between environmental and non-environmental factors shaping mobility. The typology is based on four effects: additive, enabling, vulnerability and barrier effects. It is thought to provide a generalisable conceptual language which is capable of describing the role of environmental stress in mobility decisions and thereby offering a systematic means for thinking through the processes by which environmental stress impacts upon mobility. While the framework is hypothesised to be suitably generalisable to account for other contexts and other environmental stresses, this still needs to be tested. In addition it is acknowledged that the framework suffers from some major limitations. Most notable is reliance on a conceptually false distinction between environmental and non-environmental factors, and the inability to account for the non-environmental features which shape perceptions of migration. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.."
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 = [];
Q6 = [0].
Understanding the relationship between environmental change and migration: The development of an effects framework based on the case of northern Ethiopia
Empirical work on the relationship between environmental stress and human migration has blossomed over the last 10 years. While such work has provided important insights into this relationship, there has been, to date, limited effort expended on generating a generalisable framework for apprehending such interactions. This paper seeks to address this deficit. Based on semi-structured interviews in two sending and four receiving areas in northern Ethiopia, it explores dominant mobility narratives among populations whose livelihoods are exposed to a range of environmental stresses. Analysis of these narratives corroborates findings from other empirical studies on the subject, highlighting how the impact of environmental stress on human mobility can only be understood within the context in which it occurs. To this end the paper attempts to generate a typology of interactions between environmental and non-environmental factors shaping mobility. The typology is based on four effects: additive, enabling, vulnerability and barrier effects. It is thought to provide a generalisable conceptual language which is capable of describing the role of environmental stress in mobility decisions and thereby offering a systematic means for thinking through the processes by which environmental stress impacts upon mobility. While the framework is hypothesised to be suitably generalisable to account for other contexts and other environmental stresses, this still needs to be tested. In addition it is acknowledged that the framework suffers from some major limitations. Most notable is reliance on a conceptually false distinction between environmental and non-environmental factors, and the inability to account for the non-environmental features which shape perceptions of migration. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.