 So as Melissa already mentioned, the reason we decided to also have a study on social cohesion is that obviously when refugees are joining a society that's already quite vulnerable, we may expect some tensions, some refugees being perceived as a threat, or even some resentment towards NGOs since they are helping the refugees while they're also so many locals. So in general, we might be afraid of some social conflict. And this is actually quite surprisingly a very understudied topic in this context. So you see quite a lot of studies on the effect of immigration in the Western context. Western society is basically being afraid of the social effect of refugees, of immigration in general, but the research that has been done in the African context on the effects of immigration or refugees mostly tends to focus on the economic impact or environmental impact. And even the few studies that we do have seem to be positive in nature. So a lot of the evidence we have, it's quite anecdotal. So we found it important to have a study that is based on large-scale quantitative data and really focuses on specifically social cohesion outcomes in an African context. So our research question is how the presence of families refugees are linked to different outcomes related to social cohesion in the Rwanda communities. But the social cohesion doesn't really have a universal concept, it's usually approached with different indicators of the health of society. For example, inclusiveness, cooperation, in general positive relations and trust in the community members. It's obviously the basis of the well-functioning society. And so this is what we did in our study as well is only the three different types of indicators to get subjective safety. So how it's perceived from locals themselves. Then we look at their social networks, the participation in organizations, which is formal social networks and informal social networks. And finally we look at different trust indicators, such as trust in their own community, trust towards refugees and towards NGOs. And we used mixed methods as, well, we started with the survey already mentioned by Craig and Melissa, focusing on the local population now. And we sort of have a cooler picture, including lived experience of locals. We also look at focus group discussions. And we also had a community based survey, but this was more limited. So I will focus more on the survey and the focus group discussion today. So what the theoretical background, there is really no theory for the effect of refugees on social cohesion. What we do have is an American theory on how a sudden increase in diversity will affect our local society. This is Sputnik's Hunkering Down Thesis, which is based on the assumption that an increase in diversity will cause inhabitants to withdraw from society, trust less, have less social networks in general, so a general negative effect at first. Although he, and he doesn't really talk about what happens over a longer period of time, but he knows that the SQs might change. So as I mentioned, the previous research is quite limited. And also even the results that we do have are quite mixed. So for safety, objective safety is usually looked at, well, we look at perceived safety of locals. And so some of the previous results include increased threats from some studies that were carried out in Africa, but other studies in the same context find no effect. Or another common finding is that the effect, increased safety threats, not really due to the presence of refugees, but just the proximity to conflict. And then with social networks, again, we see that the literature is very, very much focused on developed countries where we see, again, mixed results, but often, for example, the magnet stock in the long term ends up having a positive effect on social networks. And this is opposed to some very anecdotal evidence from Africa, where in general studies are missing. There we see, we saw in this one study, a negative impact of refugees. And then finally with trust, previous findings are, again, mixed. But one of them has no negative effects of diversity on general trust. So this is opposed to theory that we use. Yes, and while there is some evidence, as already mentioned previously, that NGOs might spark resemblance is the effect is mixed for locals. Some of them sort of envy the refugees for getting more benefits. Others see the source of employment, so yes. So some of the strategy was already explained by Craig. Visically, what we do is compare communities that are farther away and closer to refugee camps to see if there is a distance social cohesion outcomes. We work with a sample of 933 local households. The three areas of the refugee camps are evenly represented as are the different groups in terms of being closer versus farther away from the refugee camp. Yeah, as I mentioned, our main variable of interest is the proximity to the refugee camp. And in the original study, we include camps specific effects of proximity, but today I will more focus on general effects. And yes, as I mentioned, we use logistic progressions to analyze this effect, but also focus good discussions to interpret our results. So these are our outcomes of interest. We measure, as I mentioned, separately safety. They're all dummy in their regressions. Most of them transform from scales. So we see, do they feel safe in the community? Are they a member of any organization membership? Do they find it's formal networks? Do they have anyone to count on? Or sudden financial help, which counts as informal social networks? And finally, how much do they trust your community? How much do they trust refugees and NGOs? So as a first look at our results, we look at their scripted differences. Here we can already see that the differences between the two groups of the short distance communities versus long distance communities are barely existent. You only want the only outcome where we see a pretty significant difference, 10% point difference is having an informal network for assistance, but for the rest, it's pretty balanced in general. Indicators are quite high. So for a better understanding, we transform these logistic regressions, including a list of controls, so basic background social economic controls, such as gender of the respondent and some information about the household, social economic status, how big is the household, and which one is the closest refugee camp. And yes, here we see, look at the first line, that is the overall effect of living in the proximity of a refugee camp, although I have to note that these are only the data section, so we can't really claim causality, you can see associations. Still, we see that there are really no notable differences in terms of subjective safety for communities that are further versus closest to a refugee camp, same for formal networks. And the one where we do see an effect, a significant effect is having an informal network for assistance again. And here we see some significant differences also for proximities to specific refugee camps, but in the end, these even each other out when we look at the overall effect. This general lack of conflict was also confirmed by the focus group discussions, as this one person mentioned, the only issue we have here is poverty, and we don't have a problem with refugees, or sometimes they mentioned that they initially had some problems with sealing, but this has been resolved by now, but the controls now. So our second group of outcomes is the ones relating to trust. And here again, we see really no significant differences. We see no effect for living closer to a refugee camp, doesn't have a negative effect on people trust in their own community, or even the trust for refugees or NGOs. And again, this was also supported, we saw the same thing in focus group discussions, people were saying that in the beginning there was some fears, some suspicions, thought they had witchcraft powers, but by now they've really become one community, they don't fear them anymore, and they have commercial relations with them controls. So yeah, to summarize the results, we looked at how communities at a different distance from refugee camp, how their social vision outcome differ, then we saw that they didn't really show different outcomes, the outcomes were quite positive in general, and even more positive in one case, in the case of informal networks. So residing at a shorter distance from refugee camp doesn't decrease social vision outcomes in the community, based on our data. In terms of policy, we really have to main takeaways here. The first is that hosts and refugees mostly have a peaceful relationship. And the second one is that the work of international organizations on behalf of refugees was not a sort of resentment, as we have imagined. So to better understand and interpret this policy findings, we have a look again at hopes group discussions. And for the first one, the peaceful relations between hosts and refugees, we see three factors that seem to explain, based on the hopes group discussions. So the first one is sort of a given in this context, the culture of proximity between the two groups, the refugees and the locals. This obviously helps reduce pensions to begin with. The second one, which is quite interesting was time. So what we saw quite often is that in the beginning, we had some conflicts and suspicion, but at over time, because it's very refugee situation, these conflicts sort of result themselves. And the third is the most interesting in terms of policies, positive role of economic interaction, sort of, so that's here, for example, the participants said that since we shared production, we worked together, this helped the bond between the refugee and the local person, we see each other as co-workers. So we see this as evidence, this integrative refugee policy that we see in Randa, that they allow people to participate in the local economy, and really help build relations opposed to increasing them by mixing people more. And secondly, which was also quite interesting is we were wondering why NGOs are received so positively when you may expect some sort of resentment. Something that came up a lot was that local respondents said that they connected refugees being supported to better security. So they said that when refugees are not supported, they might turn to stealing or begging because they have no other solution. And the locals as well, they feel safer and they have less problems. The refugees, when they are well-treated, so locals actually support NGOs, providing aid to refugees, because at least in overall, safer, better environment for them as well. So it's interesting to see that they continue to support refugees is also important from a social vision perspective, the locals. Let's give this now. So overall, we interpreted the findings of our study as evidence that even in such an environment, we're limited resources. An integrity of refugee plus one that allows locals to mix with refugees can actually lead to better results, especially over time. Bring these two groups closer and create a bond between them. And it doesn't have to necessarily bring negative social cohesion effects. Thank you.