<|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:"Effectiveness of electro-fencing for restricting the ranging behaviour of wildlife: a case study in the degazetted parts of Akagera National Park."
Abstract:"Several national parks on the African continent have been fenced to mitigate human-wildlife conflict, but the effectiveness of different fencing strategies seems to vary between regions. Here, we assessed the effectiveness of electro-fencing for restricting movement patterns of several wild ungulates in Akagera National Park (NP), Rwanda. Following the turmoil of the Rwandan genocide and civil war (1991-1995), large numbers of returning war refugees brought about an increasing pressure on land use, after which considerable parts of the western Akagera NP and adjacent Mutara Game Reserve were degazetted, followed by the construction of an electric fence in 2013 and a helicopter-based game-drive of ungulates into the modern park. We conducted distance sampling of wildlife and domestic livestock in the Uruhita plain - now no longer part of Akagera NP but bordering the modern Akagera NP to the west - for extended periods of time (2010-2015) before and after fencing. For abundant species population densities could be calculated, whereas for other species encounter frequencies are reported. We report on continuously high cattle densities, and increasing encounter frequencies of sheep/goats in the Uruhita plain. We found decreasing densities of zebra (Equus quagga) and decreasing encounter frequencies of waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), stagnant encounter frequencies in the case of topi (Damaliscus lunatus jimela) and stagnant densities of impala (Aepyceros melampus). The latter species can jump fences, and we argue that competitive release and reduced predation may be the prime factors leading impala to (temporarily) exploit grasslands outside the modern national park.."
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 = [0];
Q6 = [1].
Effectiveness of electro-fencing for restricting the ranging behaviour of wildlife: a case study in the degazetted parts of Akagera National Park
Several national parks on the African continent have been fenced to mitigate human-wildlife conflict, but the effectiveness of different fencing strategies seems to vary between regions. Here, we assessed the effectiveness of electro-fencing for restricting movement patterns of several wild ungulates in Akagera National Park (NP), Rwanda. Following the turmoil of the Rwandan genocide and civil war (1991-1995), large numbers of returning war refugees brought about an increasing pressure on land use, after which considerable parts of the western Akagera NP and adjacent Mutara Game Reserve were degazetted, followed by the construction of an electric fence in 2013 and a helicopter-based game-drive of ungulates into the modern park. We conducted distance sampling of wildlife and domestic livestock in the Uruhita plain - now no longer part of Akagera NP but bordering the modern Akagera NP to the west - for extended periods of time (2010-2015) before and after fencing. For abundant species population densities could be calculated, whereas for other species encounter frequencies are reported. We report on continuously high cattle densities, and increasing encounter frequencies of sheep/goats in the Uruhita plain. We found decreasing densities of zebra (Equus quagga) and decreasing encounter frequencies of waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), stagnant encounter frequencies in the case of topi (Damaliscus lunatus jimela) and stagnant densities of impala (Aepyceros melampus). The latter species can jump fences, and we argue that competitive release and reduced predation may be the prime factors leading impala to (temporarily) exploit grasslands outside the modern national park.