Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey

Rapport 2016/11

Rasmus Reinvang

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey

Kategori	Rapporter
Underkategori(er)	Statistikk og empirisk analyseUtviklingssamarbeidMiljø
År	2016
Rapportnummer	11
Forfatter(e)	Rasmus Reinvang
Last ned	file_download (1 MB)
Les i nettleser	find_in_page

b 
 
 	 	
R	E	PORT	 	
2016/11	 	
 	
Final Survey of Project Target Group: 	 	
Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey	 
 	
Rasmus Reinvang, Cao Guozhi, Li Chao	 	
VISTA ANALYSE AS
 	
 	
42,4	
30,2	
20,6	
6,8	
0	0,4	
14,2	
47	
38,4	
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50	
1	2	3	4 & 5	1	2	3	4 & 5	
2013	2016	
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 	 	
P.R. China Ministry of Environmental Protection

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey	 	
 	
Document details	 	 	
Vista Analyse AS	 	Report numb	er 	2016/	11	 	
Tit	le 	Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and 
Comparison with Baseline Survey	 	
ISBN	 	978	-82	-8126	-268	-3 	
Authors	 	Rasmus Reinvang, Cao Guozhi, Li Chao	 	
Date of completion	 	6 March 2016	 	
Project leader	 	Haakon Vennemo	 	
Quality control	 	John Magne Skjelvik	 	
Client	 	Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 	 	
and	 P.R. China Ministry of Environment.	 	
Availability	 	Public	 	
Publicised	 	www.vista	-analyse.no	 	
Key words	 	China, Environmental Planning, Capacity Building

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey	 	
Vista Analyse 	 	 	1 	
Preface	 	
This report is developed as an activity under the Sino	-Norwegian cooperation project 	
“Planning for cost	-effective environmental risk reduction”, which began in 2013 and 	
ends in 2016. The project involves capacity	 building of governmental staff working with 	
environmental planning and emergency management in China. 	 	
In order to monitor knowledge development in the target group, a mapping survey was 
carried out at the beginning and at the end of the project. Results 	of the final survey are 	
presented here, and compared with the situation in the baseline survey. 	 	
A full presentation of the training program carried out in the project can be found in the 
Vista report 	”Planning for cost	-.effective environmental risk reduct	ion in China: Training 	
plan and activities (2013	-2016)” 	(Vista report 2016/	12	). 	
Dr. Haakon Vennemo	 	
Pro	ject leader	 	
Vista Analyse AS

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey	 	
Vista Analyse 	 	 	3 	
Content	 	
Preface	 ................................	................................	................................	........................	 1 	
Summary	 ................................	................................	................................	.....................	 5 	
1. 	Introduction	 ................................	................................	................................	.........	 9 	
1.1	 	Background and methodology	 ................................	................................	.......	 9 	
1.2	 	Basic information of the final survey	 ................................	.............................	10	 	
1.3	 	Number of project participants in the final survey	 ................................	.........	11	 	
2. 	Development in knowledge levels	 ................................	................................	.....	13	 	
2.1	 	Overview of main topics	 ................................	................................	...............	13	 	
2.2	 	Knowledge level of CBA	 ................................	................................	...............	15	 	
2.3	 	Knowledge level of SEA	 ................................	................................	...............	16	 	
2.4	 	Knowledge level, international experience with environmental planning	 .......	17	 	
2.5	 	Knowledge level of 	environmental risk reduction methodologies	 ..................	19	 	
2.6	 	Knowledge level	, international experience 	environmental risk reduction	 ......	20	 	
2.7	 	Knowledge level of GAINS and CGE models	 ................................	...............	22	 	
2.8	 	Knowledge level of the core project target grou	p at CAEP	 ...........................	23	 	
2.9	 	Other findings	 ................................	................................	...............................	23	 	
3. 	Final comments by CAEP	 ................................	................................	..................	25	 	
3.1	 	Abundant project achievement	 ................................	................................	.....	25	 	
3.2	 	Respondents all have lear	ning points	 ................................	...........................	25	 	
3.3	 	Further training and implementation	 ................................	.............................	25	 	
4. 	Appendices: Questionnaires	 ................................	................................	.............	27	 	
4.1	 	Questionnaire for baseline survey (2013)	 ................................	.....................	27	 	
4.2	 	Questionnaire for final survey	 ................................	................................	.......	28	 	
References	 ................................	................................	................................	.................	30

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey	 	
Vista Analyse 	 	 	5 	
S	ummary	 	
Background and methodology	 	
The 	Sino	-Norwegian cooperation project “Planning for cost	-effective environmental risk	 	
reduction” (2013	-2016) involved	 capacity building of governmental staff working with 	
environmental planning and emergency management in China. In order to monitor 
knowledge 	development in the target group, a mapping survey was carried out at the 	
beginning and at the end of the project. 	 	
In 2013, t	he target group 	consisted of 	103 persons from 	the 	Ministry of 	Environmental 	
Protection (MEP) and Chinese Academy of Environmental P	lanning (	CAEP	) (27	 	
person in total	), 	the provincial Envi	ronmental Protection Bureaus (EPB	) in Jiangsu and 	
Guizhou (49	 persons	), and 	the 	city EPBs	 in Tongling and Anshun (27	 persons	). 	The 	
mapping consisted of self	-reporting from project part	icipants, using questionnaires. 	
90% of those who filled in the first baseline questionnaire also filled 	in 	the final 	
questionnaire. 	The mapping was carried out by CAEP, w	ith guidance from Vista	. 	
There are drawbacks with using self	-reporting to measure know	ledge development, 	
such as a risk of participants not reporting honestly or accurately due to 	possibilities for 	
different interpretations and/or different degrees of self	-knowledge in the target group. 	
A development in knowledge levels may also be attribut	ed to other factors than this 	
project and we have in the surveys not attempted to investigate that in depth. All in all 
we consider that the surveys give a robust indication of the impact of the capacity 
bu	ilding activities on the target group of the proje	ct.	 	
A consistent and substantial positive development	 in knowledge levels	 	
A comparison of the two surveys 	– the baseline survey and the final survey 	– shows a 	
consistent and substantial positive development of knowledge in the target group. 	 	
Figure A: D	evelopment in knowledge levels, 5 main topics	 aggregated	 (in % of group	) 	
 	
In the survey we distinguished between 5 knowledge levels; Level 1 = No knowledge, 
Level 2 = Basic knowledge (familiarity), Level 3 = Theoretical knowledge, Level 4 = 
Application le	vel knowledge, and 5 = Expert level knowledge. 	 	
42,4	
30,2	
20,6	
6,8	0,4	
14,2	
47	
38,4	
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50	
1	2	3	4 & 5	1	2	3	4 & 5	
2013	2016

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline 	Survey	 	
6 	 	Vista Analyse	 	
In the survey we asked respondents to rank their knowledge of main topics in the 
project: Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), 
environmental risk reduction methodologies, a	s well as international experience with 	
environmental planning and environmental risk reduction methodologies. 	 	
When we aggregate the responses on these five topics	 (ref. figure A above)	, we see 	
that 	27% of the group were at knowledge level 3, 4 or 5 in 20	13 and that this increased 	
to 85% in 2016. The share 	stating their knowledge level is 	1 has fallen from 42% to 	
0.4%, the share with knowledge level 2 has fallen from 30% to 14 %, the share with 
knowledge level 3 has risen from 21% to 47%, and the share with knowledge level 
“applicable” (4) or “expert” (5) level has increased from 6.8% to 38	%. 	 	
Figure B: D	evelopment in knowledge levels, 	different topics	 (in %	 of group	) 	
 	
As shown in figure B	 above	, the increase in knowledge levels generally shows the 	
same positive pattern for the different main topics: CBA (total of 79% on level 3, 4 or 
5), S	EA (total of 83% on level 3, 4 or 5), environmental risk reduction methodologies 	
(total of 87% on level 3, 4 or 5), and international experiences (total of 88% on level 3, 
4 or 5). The topic ‘Environmental Risk Reduction Methodologies’	 got the highest shar	e 	
of experts, with 43%.	 	
We do, however, see differences between the main groups of the project; government 
officials at central level (MEP/CAEP), provincial level (Jiangsu and Guizhou) and local 
city level (Tongling and Anshun), ref. figure C below.	 	
 	
0
10
20
30
40
50
60	
1	2	3	4 & 5	1	2	3	4 & 5	
2013	2016	
CBA	SEA	Env. Risk	Intern. Exp.

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey	 	
Vista Analyse 	 	 	7 	
Figur	e C: Development in knowl.	 levels	, mai	n topics (aggregated)	 by	 groups	 (% of group	) 
 	
The general picture is that especially the MEP/CAEP staff has benefited from the 
project 	– with more than 80% of participants at a knowledge level of 4 or 5 (compared 	
with	 11% when the project began).	 This is not surprising, as the MEP/CAEP group also 	
includes 11 staff that participated in the core project group (see below).	 	
Improvement for provincial and city/local staff is also high, however, with more than 
80% of partici	pants at a knowledge level of 3, 4 or 5 (compared with +20% at the 	
beginning of the project). It is surprising that the city/local participants score higher than 
provincial participants (both in 2013 and 2016), as it goes against the general 
impression tha	t provincial participants have higher skills levels. It may simply be due to 	
different standards for self	-reporting, as the difference is not very big 	– but consistent. 	 	
It is worth noting that w	hen conducting the final survey, we received a number of 	
responses 	(32) 	from staff at MEP/CAEP who had not participated in the project. They 	
consistently score higher than the target group did in 2013, but significantly lower than 
the target group particip	ants who had been involved in the project. This indicates that 	
in the period of the project 	there 	has been a general increase at MEP/CAEP in the 	
project topics, but that the participants have developed their knowledge even further.	 	
Figure D: Development 	in knowledge of GAINS and MSG	-6, by main groups (	% of group	) 
 	
0
20
40
60
80
100	
1	2	3	4 & 5	1	2	3	4 & 5	
2013	2016	
MEP/CAEP	Province	City

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline 	Survey	 	
8 	 	Vista Analyse	 	
The project also had a focus on training related to use of GAINS and MSG	-6 	
methodologies. This training was mainly aimed at CAEP staff, and was not included in 
the four training sessions held e	specially for the pilot provinces and cities. 	Sur	vey 	
results (ref. figure D above	), show a signifant increase in knowledge levels at the 	
CAEP/MEP level where more than 90% have reached theoretical level of knowledge 
(3) or more and 60% have an applicable (	4) or expert (5) level of knowledge. Also 	
provinces and cities have clearly benefited from the training related to GAINS and 
MSG	-6, with about 50% at level 3, 4 or 5	. 	
Table 	A: Knowledge level of CAEP trainers	; baseline (B) and at end of project (E)	 	
Name	 	
Degree of knowledge of	 	
CBA	 	SEA	 	Int. experi	ence with 	
env. 	planning	 	
Int. experience with env	. 	
risk management	 	GAINS	 	
B 	E 	B 	E 	B 	E 	B 	E 	B 	E 	
Average 
score	 	3.2	 	4.5	 	2.3	 	4.2	 	2.8	 	4.1	 	2.5	 	4.8	 	1.8	 	3.6	 	
 
In the project, there was also a core project group on the Chinese side consisting of 11 
CAEP staff. In addition to participating in the general trainings, they also received 
special training aiming at qualifying them to become trainers in the core project	 topics. 	
Also here, we did a baseline survey and final survey of skills levels. The average 
results include all members of the core project group during the project, and it may be 
noted that more than 50% of participants in the core group shifted in the co	urse of the 	
project. Nevertheless, the survey 	(ref. table A above) 	shows consistent improvement 	
on all topics	, with an overall development from a familiar to theoretical knowledge level 	
(2 and 3) in 2013, to applicable or expert (4 or 5) in 2016	. 	
The proje	ct has had impact on the practise of government officials	 	
The participants were asked in the final survey whether the training and international 
experience received through the project had been helpful in their everyday work. They 
were also asked if the tr	aining and international experience received through the 	
project had made them do things differently in their work, and asked to provide an 
example. 99% responded yes to the first of these questions, and 87% to the other. 
Only at the provincial level (14%)	 and the city level (20%) did some respondents note 	
that the project had not made them do things differently.	 	
There is 	a need to expand on methods and tools to manage environmental risk	 	
In the surveys, we also asked a general question aimed at assessing 	whether current 	
methods and tools used in work on environmental planning and/or emergency 
response are considered sufficient. Project participants were asked to reply on a scale 
from 1	-5 (1= “they are not at all sufficient”, 5 = “they fully cover my needs”	). The survey 	
showed that 30% regarded the sufficiency of current methods and tools somewhat 
positively (answer of 3, 4 or 5), and that this had increased to 64% in 2016. The rating 
is similar among the different groups and the survey indicates that there 	still is a need 	
to improve and possibly expand the	 portfolio of methods and tools available for public 	
officials working with environmental planning	 and risk management in China.

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey	 	
Vista Analyse 	 	 	9 	
1.	 In	troduction	 	
1.1	 Background	 and methodology 	 	
The Sino	-Norwegian cooperation project “Planning for cost	-effective environmental risk 	
reduction” (2013	-2016) involves capacity building of governmental staff working with 	
environ	mental planning and emergency management in China. In order to monitor 	
knowledge development in the target group, a mapping survey was carried out at the 
beginning and at the end of the project. The baseline survey is available in Vista report	 	
2013/37 “Bas	eline Study of Environment Planning and Risk Management in China”.	1 	
The two questionnaires are included as appendices to this report (chapter 5).	 	
The target group 	of the project 	was in 2013 defined to consist	 of 103 persons from 	
MEP/CAEP (27), provincial E	PBs in Jiangsu and Guizhou (49), and city EP	Bs in 	
Tongling and Anshun (27)	 – simply all staff the involved units at the time (ref. Vista 	
Analyse 2013/37)	. There is also a core target group consisting of staff from CAEP, that 	
has implemented the project in 	cooperation with Vista Analysis and 	who has received 	
special training aimed at qualifying CAEP staff to be future trainers that can provide 
training in the main topics of the project such as CBA, SEA, GAINS and relevant 
international experiences.	 	
The mappi	ng consisted of self	-reporting from project participants, using questionnaires. 	
90% of those who filled in the first baseline questionnaire also filled out the final 
questionnaire. The mapping was carried out by CAEP, with guidance from Vista 
Analysis.	 The	re are drawbacks with using self	-reporting to measure knowledge 	
development, such as a risk of participants not reporting honestly or accurately due to 
possibilities for different interpretations and/or different degrees of self	-knowledge in 	
the target gro	up. A relatively long time span of three years between filling out the first 	
questionnaire and the last, may also lead to participants applying different standards at 
the two occasions, simply because they have forgotten 	what	 they applied the first time. 	
Finally, a development in knowledge levels may also be attributed to other factors than 
this project and we have in the surveys not attempted to investigate that in depth. 	 	
In the final survey we had some respondents that did 	not participate in the training 	
activities and that provided an opportunity to compare knowledge levels of participants 
versus non	-participants at CAEP and in provinces in some instances. In these cases, 	
the numbers indicate that there has been a general i	mprovement of knowledge levels 	
at CAEP and in provinces, but that project participants have even higher knowledge 
levels. It should be noted, however, that these non	-participants have replied to the final 	
survey due to interest in the topic/project and may	 not be representative of 	the	 general 	
situation in these institutions. All in all we consider that the surveys give a robust 
indication of the impact of the capacity building activities on the target group of the 
project.	 	 	
 	 	 	
1 All Vista reports are available at the Vista Analysis website: 	www.vista	-analyse.no/en

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline 	Survey	 	
10	 	 	Vista Analyse	 	
It is worth noting that when 	conducting the final survey, we	 received a number of 	
responses 	from staff at MEP/CAEP who had not participated in the project	 (ref. figure 3 	
below)	. In the final survey, t	hey consistently score higher than the target group did in 	
2013, but significantly lo	wer than the target group participants who had been involved 	
in the project. 	There is	 a chance that the non	-participants who filled out	 the survey are 	
abov	e average interested and competent	 in the topics of the project. Still, the 	
differences between the n	on	-participant and the participant groups	 indicates that 	even 	
though there may have 	been a general increase in 	knowledge about project topics at 	
MEP/CAEP during 	the	 period of the project, 	the 	project 	participants have developed 	
their knowledge even further	 than this	. 	
1.2	 Basic information of 	the final 	survey	 	
The	 final 	survey introduced an online form	1 with the purpose to save the paper and 	
achieve a higher responding rate	. 	
Figure 	1: Screenshot of online form	 for final survey	 	
 	
In total CAEP	 received 121 response	s in the final survey, which was carried out in 	
January 2016	. However, only 82 persons had participated in the project. (The other 	
respondents were staff at MEP/CAEP that happened to receive the on	-line survey and 	
filled it in). 	Most 	of the target group of 	the 	baseline report condu	cted the	 evaluation 	
form again	; 76 person	s 	- about 90%	 of the 83 respondents in the baseline survey	). 	
Among the total 	121 questio	nnaires we received, MEP staff submitted	 17, CAEP 	staff 	
submitted 32, provincial agencies 	submitted	 46	 (Jiangsu	 20 and Guizhou 26)	, and local 	
EPB	s (Tongling	 and Anshun) and others submitted 26 	(ref. figure 2.)	 	
 	
 	 	 	
1 http://wj.qq.com/survey.html?id=247716&hash=ec28

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey	 	
Vista Analyse 	 	 	11	 	
 	
Figure 	2: Distribution of respondents	, final survey	 	
 	
1.3	 Number of 	project 	participants 	in 	the 	final survey	 	
To be considered a participant, a respondent	 should 	have 	take	n part in project 	
activities, such as discussion	s, training, report drafting, data analysis.	 	
68% of respondents 	(82 persons) 	to the final survey 	indicated that 	they have been 	
involved in activ	ities of this project	. Breakdown of distribution is indicated in Figure 	3. 	
Most non	-participant respondents are from MEP and CAEP.	 	
Figure 	3: Dist	ribution breakdown of participant	, final survey 2016	 	
 	
86% of respondents answe	red that environmental planning is part of their job 	
responsibilities. 66% of respondents replied that environmental risk management is 
part of their job responsibilities.

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline 	Survey	 	
12	 	 	Vista Analyse

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey	 	
Vista Analyse 	 	 	13	 	
2.	 Development in knowledge levels	 	
2.1	 Overview of main 	topics	 	
A comparison of the two surveys 	– the baseline survey and the final survey 	– shows a 	
consistent and substantial positive development of knowledge in the target group. 	 	
In the survey we distinguished between 5 knowledge levels; Level 1 = No knowledge, 
Level 2 = Basic knowledge (familiarity), Level 3 = Theoretical knowledge, Level 4 = 
Application level knowledge, and 5 = Expert level knowledge. 	 	
In the survey we asked re	spondents to rank their knowledge of main topics in the 	
project: Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), 
environmental risk reduction methodologies, as well as international experience with 
environmental planning and environm	ental risk reduction methodologies. 	 	
Figure 4	: Development in knowledge le	vels, 5 main topics	 aggregated	 (in % of group	) 	
 	
When we aggregate the responses on these five topics, we see that the percentage 
stating their knowledge level is either 3 (theoretic	al), 4 (applicable) or 5 (expert) has 	
risen from 27% to 85% (ref. figure 4 below). Moreover, the percentage stating that their 
knowledge level is either 4 or 5 has risen from 7% to 38%.	 	
As shown in figure 5 below, the increase in knowledge levels generally	 shows the 	
same positive pattern for the different main topics: CBA, SEA, environmental risk 
reduction methodologies, and international experience with environmental planning 
and environmental risk reduction methodologies.	 	
42,4	
30,2	
20,6	
6,8	0,4	
14,2	
47	
38,4	
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50	
1	2	3	4 & 5	1	2	3	4 & 5	
2013	2016

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline 	Survey	 	
14	 	 	Vista Analyse	 	
Figure 5	: Development in knowledg	e level	s, different topics	 (in %	 of group	) 	
 	
We do, however, see differences between the main groups of the project; government 
officials at central level (MEP/CAEP), provincial level (Jiangsu and Guizhou) and local 
city level (Tongli	ng and Anshun	), ref. figure 6. 	 	
Figure 6	: Development in knowl.	 levels	, main topics (aggregated) by	 groups	 (% of group)	 
 	
The general picture is that especially the MEP/CAEP staff has benefited from the 
project. Improvement for provincial and city/local staff is 	also h	igh	. The participants 	
from MEP/CAEP at the beginning of the project generally had a medium to high 
knowledge level (+70% on level 2 and above) of the main topics and that the whole 
group has risen to applicable or expert level. The provincial group had 	gen	erally 	a 	
relatively low level of knowledge (50% on level 2 and above), and 80% of the group 
has risen to applicable level or above. The city/local group also had a medium to high 
knowledge level (70% on level 2 and above), and 90% of the group has risen to	 	
achieving applicable or expert level. 	It is surprising that the city/local participants score 	
higher than provincial participants, as it goes against the general impression that 
provincial participants have higher skills levels. (It may simply be due to d	ifferent 	
standards for self	-reporting, as the difference is not very big 	– but consistent.) 	 	
0
10
20
30
40
50
60	
1	2	3	4 & 5	1	2	3	4 & 5	
2013	2016	
CBA	SEA	Env. Risk	Intern. Exp.	
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90	
1	2	3	4 & 5	1	2	3	4 & 5	
2013	2016	
MEP/CAEP	Province	City

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey	 	
Vista Analyse 	 	 	15	 	
2.2	 K	nowledge level of CBA	 	
The participants have made great progress in CBA after the training.	 According to 	
the survey result, each 	group	 has made outstanding achievement in the knowledge 	
level of CBA approach. In general, the ratio of ‘no knowledge’ has 	been 	reduced to 2% 	
from 31%, and 82% of MEP and CAEP respondents chose the score of 4 or 5. For the 
provincial and local environmental aut	horities, 	the 	percent 	of 	trained 	respondents 	
cho	osing	 the score of 3, 4 or 5	 increased from 35% to 76% (province) and 63% to 80% 	
(city/local)	. 	
Fig	ure 7	: Share with no knowledge of CBA	 	
 	
Figure 8	: Share with 3, 4, or 5 knowledge of CBA	 	
 	
Figure 9	: Share 	with 4 or 5 knowledge of CBA	 	
 	
MEP/CAEP	Province	Local	All groups	
2013	17	42	12	31	
2016(trained)	0	5	0	2	
2016(not trained)	6	25	50	10	
0
20
40
60	
Percentage	
MEP/CAEP	Province	Local	All groups	
2013	33	35	63	38	
2016(trained)	94	76	80	79	
2016(not trained)	75	25	0	64	
0
20
40
60
80
100	
Percentage	
MEP/CAEP	Province	Local	All groups	
2013	4	4	38	8	
2016(trained)	82	29	35	40	
2016(not trained)	38	0	0	31	
0
20
40
60
80	
Percentage

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline 	Survey	 	
16 	 	Vista Analyse	 	
Those who have participated in the project present higher knowledge level of 
CBA. 	According to the survey result, the CBA level of the participants is generally 	
higher than the non	-participants. The share with no knowledge of	 CBA 	among	 	
participants is 2%, however 10% in non	-participants. And there are more respondents 	
who chose 3, 4, or 5 in participants than in non	-participants	 group	. 	
2.3	 Knowledge level of SEA	 	
The participants have made great progress in SEA after the training.	 According to 	
the survey result, environmental authorities and agencies has made outstanding 
achievement in the knowledge level of SEA approach. 	 	
In general, the ratio of ‘no knowledge’ has reduced to 0% from 55%, and 82% of MEP 
and CAEP respondents chose t	he score of 4 or 5	 in 2016	. The provincial and local 	
environmental authorities also have made great progress in SEA, for example, the 
share with 3, 4, or 5 knowledge of SEA in provincial respondents is increased 	from 	
17% to 76%	, and 	from 13% to 90%	 among	 local respondents.	 	
Figure 10	: Share with no knowledge of SEA 	 	
 	
Figure 11	: Share with 3, 4 or 5 knowledge of SEA	 	
 	
 
 	
MEP/CAEP	Province	Local	Total	
2013	43	64	37	55	
2016(trained)	0	0	0	0	
2016(not trained)	9	25	0	10	
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70	
Percentage	
MEP/CAEP	Province	Local	Total	
2013	32	17	13	21	
2016(trained)	100	76	90	83	
2016(not trained)	69	25	0	59	
0
20
40
60
80
100	
Percentage

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey	 	
Vista Analyse 	 	 	17	 	
 	
Figure 12	: Share with 4 or 5 knowledge of SEA	 	
 	
Those who have participated in the project present higher knowledge level of 
SEA. 	For 	example, a	ccording	 to the survey result, the SEA knowledge level of the 	
participants is generally higher than that of the non	-participants. The share with no 	
knowledge of SEA is 0% in participants, however 10% in non	-participants. And there 	
are more respondents who chose 3,	 4, or 5 in participants than in non	-participants.	 	
2.4	 Knowledge 	level,	 	international experie	nce	 	with 	
environmental planning	 	
The participants have made great progress in international	 experience and best 	
practice related to	 environmental planning	, after the tr	aining.	 According to the 	
survey result, each 	group	 has made outstanding achievement in the knowledge level of 	
international experience and best practice. In general, the ratio of ‘no knowledge’ has 
been 	reduced to 0% from 49%, and 82% of MEP and CAEP respo	ndents chose the 	
score of 4 or 5	 in 2016	. For the provincial environmental authorities, 86% of 	
respondents chose the score of 3, 4, or 5, and 24% chose 4 or 5	 in 2016	, which is 	
much higher compared to the share in 2013. Similarly, the local environmental 
authorities have made great progress.	 	
Those who have participated in the project 	show	 higher knowledge level of 	
international experience and best practice of environmental planning. 	According 	
to the survey result, the participants’ knowledge level of intern	ational experience and 	
best practice is generally higher than the non	-participants’. The share with no 	
knowledge of international experience and best practice is 0% 	among	 training 	
participants, 	compared to	 18% 	among	 non	-participants. And there are more 	
res	pondents who chose 3, 4, or 5 	among	 participants than 	among	 non	-participants.	 	
 
 
 
 	
MEP/CAEP	Province	Local	Total	
2013	14	0	0	4	
2016(trained)	82	19	20	32	
2016(not trained)	38	0	0	31	
0
20
40
60
80
100	
Percentage

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline 	Survey	 	
18	 	 	Vista Analyse	 	
 
 	
Figure 	13	: Share with no knowledge of international experience env. planning	 	
 	
Figure 	14	: Share with 3, 4 or 5 knowledge of international experience env. planning	 	
 	
Figure 	15	: Share with 4 or 5 knowledge of international experience env. 	planning	 
 	
MEP/CAEP	Province	Local	All groups	
2013	28	58	62	49	
2016(trained)	0	0	0	0	
2016(not trained)	9	50	50	18	
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70	
Percentage	
MEP/CAE	
P	Province	Local	All groups	
2013	43	17	13	25	
2016(trained)	100	86	95	88	
2016(not trained)	63	0	0	51	
0
20
40
60
80
100	
Percentage	
MEP/CAE	
P	Province	Local	All groups	
2013	11	4	0	6	
2016(trained)	82	24	30	37	
2016(not trained)	19	0	0	15	
0
20
40
60
80
100	
Percentage

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey	 	
Vista Analyse 	 	 	19	 	
2.5	 Knowledge level of 	environmental risk reduction 	
meth	odologies	 	
The participants have made great progress in environmental risk reduction 
methodologies	 after the training.	 According to the survey result, each 	group 	has 	
made outstanding achievement in the knowledge level of environmental risk reduction 
methodologies	. In general, the ratio of ‘no knowledge’ has 	been 	reduced to 0% from 	
32%, and 88% of MEP and CAEP respondents 	chose the score of 4 or 5	 in 2016	. For 	
the provincial environmental authorities, 86% of respondents chose the score of 3, 4, 
or 5, and 33% chose 4 or 5, which is much higher compared to the share in 2013. 
Similarly, the local environmental authorities have	 made great progress.	 	
Those who have participated in the project 	show	 higher knowledge level of 	
environmental risk reduction 	methodologies	. According to the survey result, the 	
share with no knowledge of environmental risk reduction methodologies is 0% 	amon	g 	
participants, 	compared to	 10% 	among	 non	-participants. And there are more 	
respondents who chose 3, 4, or 5 	among	 participants than 	among	 non	-participants, 	
meaning their related knowledge level has been greatly improved.	 	
Figure 	16:	 Share with no knowledge 	of environmental r	isk reduction meth	odologies	 	
 	
Figure 17: S	hare w	ith 3, 4, or 5 	level 	knowledge of env. risk r	eduction meth	odologies	 	
 	
MEP/CAEP	Province	Local	All groups	
2013	18	44	12	32	
2016(trained)	0	0	0	0	
2016(not trained)	9	0	50	10	
0
10
20
30
40
50
60	
Percentage	
MEP/CAEP	Province	Local	All groups	
2013	53	19	63	35	
2016(trained)	100	86	95	89	
2016(not trained)	75	50	0	67	
0
20
40
60
80
100
120	
Percentage

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline 	Survey	 	
20	 	 	Vista Analyse	 	
 	
Figure 18:	 Share with 4 or 5 	level 	knowledge of env.	 risk reduction meth	odologies 	 
 	
2.6	 K	nowledge level	, 	international	 	exp	erience with	 	
environmental risk reduction	 	
 
The participants have made great progress in knowledge of international 
experience and best practice of environmental risk reduction after the training.	 	
According to the survey result, each 	group	 has made outstand	ing achievement in the 	
knowledge level of international experience and best practice of environmental risk 
reduction 	methodologies	. In general, the ratio of ‘no knowledge’ has 	been 	reduced to 	
0% from 45%, and 100% of MEP and CAEP respondents chose the 	score of 4 or 5	 in 	
2016	. For the provincial environmental authorities, 83% of respondents chose the 	
score of 3, 4, or 5, and 24% chose 4 or 5	 in 2016	, which is much higher compared to 	
the share in 2013. Similarly, the local environmental authorities have m	ade great 	
progress.	 	
Figure 19:	 Share with no knowledge of 	international	 experience 	 	
with env	ironmental	 risk reduction methodologies	 	
MEP/CAEP	Province	Local	All groups	
2013	17	2	13	9	
2016(trained)	88	33	30	43	
2016(not trained)	34	0	0	28	
0
20
40
60
80
100	
Percentage

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey	 	
Vista Analyse 	 	 	21	 	
 	
 
 	
Figure 20:	 Share with 3, 4 or 5 knowledge of international experience 	 	
with env	ironmental	 risk reduction meth	odologies	 	
 	
Figure 21	: Share with 4 or 5 knowledge of international experience 	 	
with env	ironmental	 risk reduction 	methodologies	 	
 	
MEP/CAEP	Province	Local	All groups	
2013	45	
2016(trained)	0	0	0	0	
2016(not trained)	9	50	50	15	
0
10
20
30
40
50
60	
Percentage	
MEP/CAE	
P	Province	Local	All groups	
2013	25	0	18	
2016(trained)	100	83	95	88	
2016(not trained)	75	25	0	64	
0
20
40
60
80
100	
Percentage	
MEP/CAE	
P	Province	Local	All groups	
2013	15	7	
2016(trained)	100	24	0	40	
2016(not trained)	47	0	0	38	
0
20
40
60
80
100	
Percentage

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline 	Survey	 	
22	 	 	Vista Analyse	 	
 
Those who have participated in the project 	show	 higher knowledge level of 	
international experience and best practice of environmental risk reduction. 
According to the survey result, the share with no knowledge is 0% 	among	 participants, 	
compared to	 15% in non	-participants. And there are more respondents 	who chose 3, 4, 	
or 5 	among	 participants than 	among	 non	-participants, meaning their related knowledge 	
level has been greatly improved.	 	
2.7	 Knowledge level 	of GAINS	 and CGE	 models	 	
The project also had a focus on training related to use of GAINS and 	computable 	
ge	neral equilibrium (CGE) models, especially MSG	-6 developed by Statistics Norway	. 	
This training was mainly aimed at CAEP staff, and was not included in the training 
sessions held for the pilot provinces and cities.	1 Survey results (ref. figure 	22	 below), 	
show a signifant increase in knowledge levels at the CAEP/MEP level where more than 
90% have reached 	a 	theoretical level of knowledge or more and 60% have an 	
applicable level of knowledge. Also provinces and cities have clearly benefited from the 
training related to GAINS and MSG	-6. 	
Figure 22	: Development in knowledge of GAINS and MSG	-6 methodologies, by main 	
groups (in %	 of group	) 	
 	
On average	, the ratio of ‘no knowledge’ has 	been 	reduced 	from 75% to 18%	. 59% of 	
MEP and CAEP respondents chose the 	score of 4 or 5	 in 2016	, up from a mere 4% in 	
2013	. For the provincial environmental authorities, 45% of respondents chose the 	
score of 3, 4, or 5, and 24% chose 4 or 5, which is much higher compared to the share 
in 2013. 	 	
 	 	 	
1 For further details, see Vista 	report 2016/12 ”Planning	 for cost	-.effective environmental risk 	
reduction	 in China	: Training plan and 	activities (2013	-2016)”	 which describes the capacity 	
building activities of the project.

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey	 	
Vista Analyse 	 	 	23	 	
2.8	 Knowledge level of the core proje	ct target group at CAEP	 	
In the project, there was a core project group on the Chinese side consisting of 11 
CAEP staff (including new staff that replaced team members that were shifted to other 
units during the project). In addition to participating in the	 general trainings, they also 	
received special training aiming at qualifying them to become trainers in the core 
project topics. 	 	
Also here, we did a baseline survey 	in 2013 	and a final survey of skill levels	 in 2016	. 	
The average provided in table 1 below,	 includes all members of the core project group 	
during the project. It may be noted that more than 50% of 	the 	participants in the core 	
group shifted in the course of the project, and that many of the 11 thus did not have 
opportunity	 to participate in the f	ull course of the project. Nevertheless, the survey 	
shows consistent improvement on all topics and the core group as a whole has 
reached knowledge levels of 4 (applicable) or 5 (expert) in all topics.	 	
Table 	1: Knowledge level of CAEP trainers	; baseline (B)	 and at end of project (E)	 	
Name	 	
Degree of knowledge of	 	
CBA	 	SEA	 	Int. experience with 	
env. 	planning	 	
Int. experience with env. 	
risk management	 	GAINS	 	
B 	E 	B 	E 	B 	E 	B 	E 	B 	E 	
Average 
score	 	3.2	 	4.5	 	2.3	 	4.2	 	2.8	 	4.1	 	2.5	 	4.8	 	1.8	 	3.6	 	
 
2.9	 Other findings	 	
2.9.1	 The project 	has had impact on the practise of government officials	 	
The participants were asked in the final survey whether the training and international 
experience received through the project had been helpful in their everyday work. They 
were also asked if the 	training and international experience received through the 	
project had made them do things differently in their work, and asked to provide an 
example. 99% responded yes to the first of these questions, and 87% to the other. 
Only at the provincial level (14	%) and the city level (20%) did some respondents note 	
that the project had not made them do things differently.	 	
2.9.2	 There is 	a need to expand on methods and to	ols	 	
In the surveys, we also asked a general question aimed at assessing whether current 
methods and tools used in work on environmental planning and/or emergency 
response are considered sufficient. Project participants were asked to reply on a scale 
from 1	-5 (	1= “they are not at all sufficient”, 5 = “they fully cover my needs”). 	 	
The survey showed that 30% regarded the sufficiency of current methods and tools 
somewhat positively (answer of 3, 4 or 5)	 in 2013	, and that this had increased to 64% 	
in 2016. The	 chan	ge in	 rating is similar among the different groups 	(ref. figure 23	-25 	
below) 	and the survey indicates that there still is a need to improve and possibly

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline 	Survey	 	
24	 	 	Vista Analyse	 	
expand the portfolio of methods and tools available for public officials working with 
environmental pla	nning and risk management in China. 	 	
Figure 	23: Share 	not sa	tisfied with available methods and tools	
 	
Figure 	24:	 Share with 3, 4 or 5 satisfaction of methods and tools	
 	
Figure 25:	 Share with 4 or 5 s	atisfaction with methods and tools	
 	
MEP/CAEP	Province	Local	All groups	
2013	11	44	12	30	
2016(trained)	0	5	15	6	
2016(not trained)	6	5	0	5	
0
10
20
30
40
50	
Percentage	
MEP/CAEP	Province	Local	All groups	
2013	43	27	26	31	
2016(trained)	70	62	70	64	
2016(not trained)	53	62	0	46	
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80	
Percentage	
MEP/CAEP	Province	Local	All groups	
2013	29	6	13	13	
2016(trained)	29	14	25	20	
2016(not trained)	16	14	0	13	
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35	
Percentage

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey	 	
Vista Analyse 	 	 	25	 	
3.	 Final comments	 by CAEP	 	
3.1	 Abundant project achievement	 	
Compared with the baseline survey when the project kicked off, the respondents from 
central	, provincial	 and local level	s all achieved great progress in 	understanding of CBA 	
and SEA methodology	, environmental risk control methodology and related 	
international experiences	. 99% of the respondents who have 	participated in the project 	
reported that	 the project 	did benefit	 their daily work, and above 80% of the respondents	 	
reported	 that 	methodologies	 (CBA & 	SEA	) that they learnt during the training could be 	
used and referenced in their work. 	Therefore	, the project	 has	 achieved 	targ	ets to 	
communicate and introduce	 international experiences, model methodologies and tools.	 	
3.2	 Res	pondents 	all have	 learning	 point	s 	
From the result of the survey, 	CAEP has noted	 that respondents from different 	
organizations have different learning	 point	s due to the different focus of	 each 	
organization. MEP and CAEP 	ha	s put a lot of efforts on learning models, i	nternational 	
experiences, 	and 	CBA/SEA methodology trainings, 	and therefore	 demonstrate high 	
understanding	 in related questions. Provincial and local environmental institutes have 	
achieved 	deeper understanding in overall methodology structure, international	 	
experi	ences, and risk control concepts	 in particular, 	and 	they have gain	ed	 great 	
progress in some basic methodology's application (risk control, SEA	, CBA etc.).	 	
Moreover, although 32% of the respondents 	of the final survey did not participat	e in the 	
training and workshop, they show interests 	in this project and their understanding in 	
environmental planning, risk control international experiences, methodology, model are 
all relatively lower compared with 	those	 who have part	icipated in the proje	ct. This also, 	
to some extent	, demonstrates the achievements of this project and the necessity of 	
continuously	 communicating project achievements and do follow	-up research.	 	
3.3	 Further training and implementation	 	
Although the achievements of this project is si	gnificant, there is a share of respondents 	
from provincial and local level environmental protection	 agencies who think that t	he 	
methodologies from the trai	ning did	 no	t significantly change their working style.	 There 	
are mainly two reasons. 	The first is tha	t work with 	environmental risk control 	has just 	
started	 in China, and it needs a long time	 before people's understanding and 	
ap	plication capability improves and effectively combines 	theory and real work.	 	
Secondly, it is because most of the participants in 	this project are practitioners in local 	
environmental au	thorities, and they care more about	 implementation of the c	oncept 	
and theories, and look	 forward to get	ting	 easier and more stable application tools to 	
directly benefit their work.	 	
Therefore, in 	next	-steps of the project and follow	-up work	, we need to think more about 	
the real status of China, especially local	ly, and how to 	stren	gthen the research related 	
to implementation of concept and theories. Besides training	 activities	, 	it will be 	
important to 	develop practical tools and provide effective and strong work foundation

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline 	Survey	 	
26	 	 	Vista Analyse	 	
for	 environmental 	practitioners	 at different levels that are 	working on environmental risk 	
control, planning and emergency management.

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey	 	
Vista Analyse 	 	 	27	 	
4.	 Appendices: 	Questionnaires	 	
4.1	 Questionnaire for baseline survey (2013)	 	
 
First Questionnaire, at beginning of project	 	
Please mark the right answer with “X”	 	
 	Question	 	Answer	 	
1. 	Do you work for MEP, CAEP, provincial authorities or a 
city/municipality? 	 	
MEP	 	____	 	
CAEP	 	____	 	
Province	 	____	 	
City	 	____	 	
2. 	
Is development of environmental plans part of your job 
responsibilities? (Yes/No)	 	
 
 	____ ____	 	
 	(Yes) / (No)	 	
3. 	
Is emergency response to environmental risks part of your job 
responsibilities? 	(Yes/No)	 	
 
 	___ __	__	 	
 	(Yes) / (No)	 	
4. 
 	
Do you carry out analysis of cost	-effect as part of your job 	
responsibilities? (Yes/No)	 	
 	
____ 	____	 	
 	(Yes) / (No)	 	
5. 	
Please rank your present level of knowledge of cost	-effect analysis on 	
a 	scale from 1	-5? (1 = “no knowledge”, 5 = “expert level of 	
knowledge”)	 	
__ __ __ __ __	 	
(1)	 (2) (3) 	(4) (5)	 	
6. 	
Do you carry out Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) as part 
of your job responsibilities? (Yes/No)	 	
 	
 	____ ____	 	
 	(Yes) / (No)	 	
7. 	Please rank your present level of knowledge of SEA on a scale from 
1-5? (1 = “no knowledge”, 5 = “expert level of knowledge”)	 	
__ __ __ __ _	_ 	
(1)	 (2) (3) 	(4) (5)	 	
8. 	
Please rank your present level of knowledge of international 
experiences and best practice related to environmental planning, on a 
scale from 1	-5? (1 = “no knowledge”, 5 = “expert level of knowledge”)	 	
 
 __ __ __ __ _	_ 	
(1)	 (2) (3) 	(4) (5)	 	
9. 	
Please rank your present level of knowledge and experience with 
environmental risk reduction methodologies, on a scale from 1	-5?	 	
(1 = “no knowledge”, 5 = “expert level of knowledge”)	 	
__ __ __ __ 	__	 	
(1)	 (2) (3) 	(4) (5)	 	
10.	 	
Please rank your present level of knowledge of international 
experiences and best practice 	related to environmental risk 	
methodologies, on a scale from 1	-5? (1 = “no knowledge”, 5 = “expert 	
level of knowledge”)	 	
__ __ __ __ __	 	
(1)	 (2) (3)	 (4) (5)	 	
11.	 	
Please rank your present level of knowledge about GAINS, CGE	-	
models and other models for integ	rated evaluation of environmental 	
impact, on a scale from 1	- 5. (1 = “no knowledge”, 5 = “expert level of 	
knowledge”)	 	
__ __ __ __ _	_ 	
(1)	 (2) (3) 	(4) (5)	 	
12.	 	
Do you consider that the current methods and tools that you use in 
your work on environmental 	planning and/or emergency response 	
fully cover your needs to solve tasks efficiently? (1= “they are not at 
all sufficient”, 5 = “they fully cover my needs”)	 	
__ __ __ __ _	_ 	
(1) (2) (3)	 (4) (5)

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline 	Survey	 	
28	 	 	Vista Analyse	 	
13.	 	
In your job, is there any specific type of international experience 
related to environmental planning or risk methodology that it would be 
particularly useful for you to learn more about? 	 	
(Yes/No. If Yes, please describe it shortly below.)	 	
 	
 	
 	____ 	 ____	 	
 	(Yes) / (No)	 	
4.2	 Questionnaire for final survey	 	
 
Last Questionnaire, at end of project	 	
Please mark the right answer with “X”	 	
 	Question	s 	Answer	 	
1. 	Do you work for MEP, CAEP, provincial authorities or a 
city/municipality? 	 	
MEP	 	____	 	
CAEP	 	____	 	
Province	 	____	 	
City	 	____	 	
2. 	Is development of environmental plans part of your job 
responsibilities? 	(Yes/No)	 	
 ____ ____	 	
 	(Yes) / (	No	) 	
3. 	Is 	emergency response to environ	me	ntal risks 	part of your job 	
responsibilities? 	(Yes/No)	 	
 ____ ____	 	
 	(Yes) / (	No	) 	
4. 	
Please rank your present level of knowledge of cost	-effect 	
analysis on a scale from 1	-5? (1 = “no knowledge”, 5 = “expert 	
level of knowledge”)	 	
__ __ __ __ __	 	
(1)	 (2) (3) 	(4) (5)	 	
5. 	
Please rank your present 	level of knowledge of SEA on a scale 	
from 1	-5? (1 = “no knowledge”, 5 = “expert level of 	
knowledge”)	 	
__ __ __ __ __	 	
(1)	 (2) (3) 	(4) (5)	 	
6. 	
Please rank your present level of knowledge of international 
experiences and best practice related to 	environmental 	
planning, on a scale from 1	-5? (1 = “no knowledge”, 5 = 	
“expert level of knowledge”)	 	
__ __ __ __ __	 	
(1)	 (2) (3) 	(4) (5)	 	
7. 	
Please rank your present level of knowledge and experience 
with environmental risk reduction methodologies, on a 	scale 	
from 1	-5?	 	
(1 = “no knowledge”, 5 = “expert level of knowledge”)	 	
__ __ __ __ __	 	
(1)	 (2) (3) 	(4) (5)	 	
8. 	
Please rank your present level of knowledge of international 
experiences and best practice related to environmental risk 
methodologies, on a scal	e from 1	-5? (1 = “no knowledge”, 5 = 	
“expert level of knowledge”)	 	
__ __ __ __ __	 	
(1)	 (2) (3) 	(4) (5)	 	
9. 	
Please rank your present level of knowledge about GAINS, 
CGE	-models and other models for integrated evaluation of 	
environmental impact, on a scale 	from 1	- 5. (1 = “no 	
knowledge”, 5 = “expert level of knowledge”)	 	
__ __ __ __ __	 	
(1)	 (2) (3) 	(4) (5)	 	
10.	 	
Do you consider that the current methods and tools that you 
use in your work on environmental planning and/or emergency 
response fully cover your nee	ds to solve tasks efficiently? (1= 	
“they are not at all sufficient”, 5 = “they fully cover my needs”)	 	
__ __ __ __ __	 	
(1)	 (2) (3) 	(4) (5)	 	
11.	 	Has the training and international experiences you have 
received through the project been helpful for you in your 	
 	
 ____ ____

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline Survey	 	
Vista Analyse 	 	 	29	 	
everyday work? 	 	 	(Yes) / (	No	) 	
12.	 	
Has the training and international experiences you have 
received through the project made you do things differently in 
your work? 	 (If Yes, please give a short example below.)	 	
 ____ ____	 	
 	(Yes) / (	No	)

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline 	Survey	 	
30	 	 	Vista Analyse	 	
References	 	
Vista Analyse (2013	). 	Baseline study of Environment Planning and Risk Management 	
in China	. Report 2013/37. By Cao Guozhi et al. 	 	
Vista Analyse (2016): 	Planning for cost	-effective environmental risk reduction in China: 	
Training plan and activitie	s (2013	-2016)	. Report 2016/	12	. By	 Rasmus Reinvang.

Final Survey of Project Target Group: Results and Comparison with Baseline 	Survey	 	
32	 	 	Vista Analyse	 	
 	
 
Vista Analyse AS	 	
Meltzersgate 4	 	
0257 Oslo	 	
 
post@vista	-analyse.no	 	
vista	-analy	se.no

Parse pdf-doc by clicking the button below. Parsed pdf-documents will be searchable.

Metadata Found
Author
Rasmus Reinvang, Cao Guozhi, Li Chao
Producer
Mac OS X 10.10.5 Quartz PDFContext
CreationDate
2016-05-29T19:01:00+00:00
ModDate
2016-05-29T19:01:00+00:00
Pages
34