<|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:"The emerging New Zealand jurisprudence on climate change, disasters and displacement."
Abstract:"In mid-2014, there was global media coverage of a decision by the New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal, heralded as the first legal recognition of 'climate change refugees'. Despite the hype, the Tribunal had made no such finding. The case concerned a family of four from the small Pacific island State of Tuvalu, who argued, among other things, that the effects of climate change-in particular, a lack of fresh drinking water and sea-level rise-would have adverse impacts on them if they were forced to return home. While the Tribunal ultimately permitted them to stay in New Zealand, this was not because of the impacts of climate change in Tuvalu, but rather because of their strong family ties within New Zealand. The decision was based purely on humanitarian and discretionary grounds, not on any domestic or international legal obligation. However, since 2013, New Zealand has started to specifically and systematically delineate the legal protection framework applicable to claims based on the impacts of climate change, natural disasters or environmental degradation. While no one has yet been granted protection on these grounds, New Zealand's jurisprudence provides the most comprehensive analysis by decision-makers to date about the scope and content of protection for people escaping the impacts of climate change and disasters. Using the recent Tuvaluan case as a starting point, this article examines the development of New Zealand's case law and its implications for other jurisdictions.."
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:

The emerging New Zealand jurisprudence on climate change, disasters and displacement
In mid-2014, there was global media coverage of a decision by the New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal, heralded as the first legal recognition of 'climate change refugees'. Despite the hype, the Tribunal had made no such finding. The case concerned a family of four from the small Pacific island State of Tuvalu, who argued, among other things, that the effects of climate change-in particular, a lack of fresh drinking water and sea-level rise-would have adverse impacts on them if they were forced to return home. While the Tribunal ultimately permitted them to stay in New Zealand, this was not because of the impacts of climate change in Tuvalu, but rather because of their strong family ties within New Zealand. The decision was based purely on humanitarian and discretionary grounds, not on any domestic or international legal obligation. However, since 2013, New Zealand has started to specifically and systematically delineate the legal protection framework applicable to claims based on the impacts of climate change, natural disasters or environmental degradation. While no one has yet been granted protection on these grounds, New Zealand's jurisprudence provides the most comprehensive analysis by decision-makers to date about the scope and content of protection for people escaping the impacts of climate change and disasters. Using the recent Tuvaluan case as a starting point, this article examines the development of New Zealand's case law and its implications for other jurisdictions.