<|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:"Modelling the Mobility Changes Caused by Perceived Risk and Policy Efficiency."
Abstract:"In many countries, governments have implemented non-pharmaceutical techniques to limit COVID-19 transmission. Restricting human mobility is one of the most common interventions, including lockdown, travel restrictions, working from home, etc. However, due to the strong transmission ability of the virus variants, further rounds of interventions, including a strict lockdown, are not considered as effective as expected. The paper aims to understand how the lockdown policy and pandemics changed human mobility in the real scenario. Here we focus on understanding the mobility changes caused by compliance with restrictions and risk perceptions, using a mobility index from the Google report during three strict lockdown periods in Leeds, the largest city in the county of West Yorkshire, England, from March 2020 to March 2021. The research uses time-varying z-scores and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to simulate how local people dynamically process and perceive health risks based on multi-dimensional daily COVID-19 reports first. Further modelling highlights exponentially increasing policy non-compliance through the duration of lockdown, probably attributable to factors such as mental anxiety and economic pressures. Finally, the proposed nonlinear regression model examines the mobility changes caused by the population's dynamic risk perceptions and lockdown duration. The case study model in Leeds shows a good fit to the empirical mobility data and indicates that the third lockdown policy took effect much slower than the first. At the same time, the negative impact of the epidemic on population mobility decayed by 40% in the third lockdown period in contrast with the first lockdown. The risk perception estimation methods could reflect that the local population became increasingly accustomed to the COVID-19 situation, and local people rationally evaluated the risks of COVID in the third lockdown period. The results demonstrate that simulated risk perceptions and policy decay could explain urban mobility behaviour during lockdown periods, which could be a reference for future decision-making processes.."
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].
Modelling the Mobility Changes Caused by Perceived Risk and Policy Efficiency
In many countries, governments have implemented non-pharmaceutical techniques to limit COVID-19 transmission. Restricting human mobility is one of the most common interventions, including lockdown, travel restrictions, working from home, etc. However, due to the strong transmission ability of the virus variants, further rounds of interventions, including a strict lockdown, are not considered as effective as expected. The paper aims to understand how the lockdown policy and pandemics changed human mobility in the real scenario. Here we focus on understanding the mobility changes caused by compliance with restrictions and risk perceptions, using a mobility index from the Google report during three strict lockdown periods in Leeds, the largest city in the county of West Yorkshire, England, from March 2020 to March 2021. The research uses time-varying z-scores and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to simulate how local people dynamically process and perceive health risks based on multi-dimensional daily COVID-19 reports first. Further modelling highlights exponentially increasing policy non-compliance through the duration of lockdown, probably attributable to factors such as mental anxiety and economic pressures. Finally, the proposed nonlinear regression model examines the mobility changes caused by the population's dynamic risk perceptions and lockdown duration. The case study model in Leeds shows a good fit to the empirical mobility data and indicates that the third lockdown policy took effect much slower than the first. At the same time, the negative impact of the epidemic on population mobility decayed by 40% in the third lockdown period in contrast with the first lockdown. The risk perception estimation methods could reflect that the local population became increasingly accustomed to the COVID-19 situation, and local people rationally evaluated the risks of COVID in the third lockdown period. The results demonstrate that simulated risk perceptions and policy decay could explain urban mobility behaviour during lockdown periods, which could be a reference for future decision-making processes.