Loading...
Nonresident Summer Visitor ProfileSchool of Forestry Phone (406) 243-5686 Institute for Tourism & 32 Campus Dr. #1234 Fax (406) 243-4845 The University of Montana www.forestry.umt.edufitrr Recreation Research Missoula, MT 59812 Nonresident Summer Visitor Profile by Norma Nickerson, Ph.D. Thale Dillon, M.S. Research Report 2002-5 April 2002 Institute for Tourism & Recreation Research School of Forestry The University of Montana Missoula, MT 59812 www.forest!y.umt.edu/itr This study was funded by the Lodging Facility Use Tax Acknowledgements Executive Summary Chapter 1: Nonresident Summer Visitor Profile I Introduction I Methodology Study Population Population Estimation Survey Methodology and Response Rates Chapter 2: Results ALL visitors Trip Satisfaction and Changes Noted by Summer Visitors Demographic Characteristics of Summer Visitors: All visitors and by Purpose of Trip Trip Characteristics of Summer Visitors: All Visitors and by Purpose of Trip Comparison Data: Summer 1996 vs Summer 2001 Chapter 3: Summary and Discussion 2 2 2 2 4 7 7 10 15 Summary 19 Summer Expenditures/Group Size/Length of Stay 19 Travel Patterns 19 Satisfaction and Changes Observed 20 Traveler Demographic and Trip Characteristics 21 Traveler Trends 24 Discussion 25 Marketing 25 Program Development 25 Future research 28 Appendix A Survey Instrument INSTITUTE FOR TOURIS M & RECREATION RESEARCH: NONRESIDENT SIMMER VISITOR PROFILE 30 All Visitors Table 1: Trip Expenditures — Summer 2001....................................................... Table 2: Percent of Overnight Stays by Region .................................................. Table 3: Percent of Overnight Stays for Selected Communities ............................... Table 4: Percent of Nonresidents on Specific Highway Segments ........................... Trip Satisfaction and Changes Noted by Summer Visitors Table 5: Satisfaction with Montana Conditions...................................................... Table 6: Changes Seen Over Time by Returning Visitors ........................................ Demographic Characteristics of Summer Visitors: All visitors and by Purpose of Trip Table 7: Reasons for Visiting Montana in the Summer ................................ Table 8: Demographic Comparison of All Summer Travel Groups and Those Categorized by Primary Reason for Visiting Montana .................... Table 9: Visitors Place of Residence....................................................... Trip Characteristics of Summer Visitors: All Visitors and by Purpose of Trip Table 10: General Trip Behavior.............................................................. Table 11: Accommodations..................................................................... Table 12: Summer Attractions to Montana for those who Indicated Vacation as One Reason for trip............................................................. Table 13: Sites Visited While in Montana over the Years ............................. Table 14: Selected Sites Visited While in Montana on this Trip ..................... Table 15: Sources of Information Used to Plan Trip .................................... Table 16: Source of Information Used While in Montana .............................. Table 17: Activities Participated in While in Montana on this Trip ................... Table 18: Comments by all Visitors........................................................... Comparison Data: Summer 1996 vs Summer 2001 7 7 7 10 10 ........................... 11 ...........................12 ........................... 12 ........................... 12 ........................... 13 ........................... 13 ........................... 14 Table 19: Comparison of Expenditures: 1996 vs 2001.......................................................... 15 Table 20: Travel Characteristics: 1998 vs 2001.................................................................... 16 Table 21: Attractions to the State: 1996 vs 2001................................................................... 17 Table 22: Sources of Information Used to Plan Trip: 1996 vs 2001.......................................... 17 Table 23: Sources of Information Use While in Montana: 1996 vs 2001................................... 17 Table 24: Comparison of Activities Participated in While in Montana: 1996 vs 2001................... 18 INSTITUTE FOR TOURISM & RECREATION RESEARCH. NONRESIDENT SIMMER VISITOR PROFILE This study could not have been completed without the cooperation of many people around the state of Montana and the many visitors who endorsed our study by answering our many questions. We are forever indebted to the wonderful visitors who spent their trip time filling out the questionnaire and mailing it back to ITRR. A study of this magnitude has many employees who put their heart and soul into the project. The summer surveyors spent 40 hours each week in temperatures ranging from the upper 90's to the 30's. Mosquitoes and flies made their outdoor intercepts interesting to say the least. Forest fires by both national parks changed the big sky to smoky skies. Finally, the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001 greatly affected the last two weeks of data collection in September. A special thanks goes to our four summer surveyors: Todd Easton and Andy Johnson who covered the west side of the state and Jim Hartung and Charlie Beene who surveyed visitors in the eastern part of the state. In addition to the "in -the -field" surveyors, other workers on the summer study included Abby Aronofsky, Holly Praytor, Clint Cook, and Bethany Sutton. These individuals were responsible for coding and organizing all the returned surveys. Special thanks go to all the airlines who cooperated with the study by allowing our survey personnel to contact all people boarding flights and to the airport managers throughout the state who gave their approval: Billings: Thomas Binford Bozeman: Brian Sprenger Butte: Rick Griffith Great Falls: Cynthia Schultz Helena: Ronald Mercer Kalispell: Monte Eliason Missoula: John Seymour West Yellowstone: Chris Cervantes Finally, thanks go out to the customs and immigration officials at the northern borders of Montana and to all the gas station/convenience store owners/managers who allowed our surveyors to talk to their customers. INSTITUTE FOR TOURISM & RECREATION RESEARCH: NONRESIDENT SIMMER VISITOR PROFILE- I Nonresident Summer Travelers to Montana: 2001 • During the four -month study period June -September, nonresident visitors were intercepted at gas stations, rest areas, and airports. Questionnaires were handed to 7,362 groups with a resulting 40% response rate. • Summer visitors deposited $1.042 billion in Montana in 2001, a slight decrease in overall summer expenditures of $1.071 billion in 1996 (in 2001 dollars). This drop in expenditures is explained by a slightly shorter length of stay from 4.5 nights in 1996 to 4.2 nights in 2001 plus a slight decrease in group size of 2.5 down from 2.6. • The top three expenditure categories were gasoline at $25.14, retail at $24.18, and restaurant/bar at $21.20 per visitor group per day. • Summer visitors travel a variety of road segments. On the east -west corridors, between 19 and 39 percent of all nonresidents traveled Interstate 90, and up to 19 percent traveled parts of US2 by Glacier National Park. The most heavily traveled section of Interstate 90 was between Livingston and Bozeman (39%). The most heavily traveled section on Interstate 94 was between Billings and Miles City with 14-15 percent of all nonresident traffic. Going to -the -Sun -Road in Glacier National Park saw 15 percent of Montana's nonresident traffic. • The north -south routes carried significantly fewer nonresidents than the east -west routes. US89 between Livingston and Gardiner had the highest percent of travelers (19%), followed by Interstate 15 between Shelby and Great Falls with 7-13 percent of the traffic and 13-14 percent who traveled US93 between Polson and Missoula. Fifteen percent of the traffic traveled into Yellowstone National Park from West Yellowstone. • Communities in the state who received the highest proportion of nonresidents overnights were Billings (9%), Missoula and West Yellowstone (7% each), Bozeman (6%), and Gardiner and Great Falls (4% each). • People who reside in Washington and California come to Montana in greater percentage than any other state (12% and 10% respectively). The bordering states of Idaho, North Dakota, and Wyoming add up to 14 percent of all nonresidents visiting Montana in the summer months. Eight percent of all visitors were from Canada while 3 percent were from overseas. • Seventy-six percent of all summer visitors had visited the state on previous occasions. • Nonresidents were satisfied with their experiences in Montana and most satisfied with Montana's hospitality and service with 90 percent of respondents indicating they were satisfied. At the other end, 61 percent of visitors indicated satisfaction with the availability of highway rest areas but 11 percent were dissatisfied. • In general, visitors believe very little has changed in Montana over the years. On the positive side, visitors believe the availability of commercial lodging has improved. On the negative side, 22 percent of the visitors who have been here before believe the amount of open space is disappearing in Montana. • Vacationers Profile: Comprise 52 percent of all summer visitors, stayed 4.6 nights, were in travel groups of couples (45%) or families (34%), and 29 percent were traveling with children under 18 years of age. Thirty- three percent visited Yellowstone, 23 percent visited Glacier, 13 percent visited the Flathead Lake area, and 3 percent visited Little Bighorn Battlefield. Fifty percent watched wildlife, 46 percent day hiked, 45 percent went shopping, 25 percent visited museums, 9 percent hired an outfitter or guide. 44 percent of vacationer nights were spent in hotel/motels while 32 percent of vacationer nights were spent camping. The Intemet was used by 53 percent of vacationers for planning their trip followed by an automobile club (30%). • Visiting Friend & Relatives (VFR) Profile: Comprise 15 percent of all summer visitors, stayed 5.7 nights, were in travel groups of families (39%) or couples (34%), and 27 percent were traveling with children under 18 years of age. VFR visitors are less active then vacationers but 49 percent did go shopping, 34 percent went picnicking, 31 percent watched wildlife, and 29 percent day hiked. Fifty-four percent of VFR visitors did not use any of the listed information sources for planning, but 30 percent used the Intemet (the information source used by the greatest number of people). Forty-four percent of VFR visitors have lived in Montana in the past. • Passing Through Profile: Comprised 21 percent of all summer visitors, stayed 1.4 nights, traveled as couples (59%) or families (32%). Eighteen percent visited Yellowstone National Park, 18 percent shopped, 17 percent went on a picnic, 15 percent visited Montana history sites. INSTITUTE FOR TOURISM & RECREATION RESEARCH: NONRESIDENT SLMMER VISITOR PROFILE- 11 ® Business: Comprised 7 percent of all summer visitors, stayed 7.6 nights, traveled alone (49%), and were inactive visitors to the state. The business visitor was more likely to travel by air (43%) than any other visitor type. ® Comparison between 1996 Summer Visitors and 2001 Summer Visitors. ® The number of couples (group type) increased from 38 percent to 41 percent and families decreased by two percentage points. ® Summer visitors continue to return to Montana at the same rate (76% were repeat visitors in 2001 compared to 75 percent in 1996). ® Twenty-eight percent of all visitors came from Washington, California and Idaho in both years. The one noticeable change was the re-emergence of Alberta visitors who represented four percent of Montana's summer visitor in 2001. ® There was a three percentage point increase in vacationers over 1996. ® The top attractions to Montana have remained the same from 1996 to 2001: Mountains/forests, Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks, Rivers/lakes, and open space/uncrowded areas continue to be the top attractions to Montana. ® Activities participated in also remained stable over the years with wildlife watching and shopping topping the activity list. However, wildlife watching decreased by nine percentage point in 2001 while shopping increased seven percentage points. The increase of visitors who engaged in some form of historic/cultural site or museum visitation increased from 1996 to 2001. ® In 1996 only five percent of all visitors used the Internet for planning purposes and only three percent said it was the most useful information source. By 2001, 43 percent of the visitors used the Internet, and 38 percent said it was their most useful source of information. Vacationers used the Internet in even higher proportions with 53 percent using it for planning. ® It is recommended that Montana, from a program development standpoint, look at all aspects of tourism; economic, social and environmental, so as to preserve what we have and the reason why people visit this state. ® The Montana Department of Transportation could reevaluate their plan on rest areas and visitor centers. From an economic development standpoint, visitor centers immediately off the Interstates at the state borders can encourage visitors to stay longer and do more, in turn requiring visitors to spend more dollars in the state. ® Marketing opportunities to nonresident visitors include marketing to the repeat visitor as this type of visitor has already seen parts of the state and could be convinced to return. ® Marketing to new visitors requires placing the two national parks as icons to draw them to the state. ® The majority of visitors overnight in Montana's larger communities. It is important for the areas surrounding the larger communities to work together and encourage circle tours or day trips in and out of "home bases" in the larger communities thereby increasing tourism to rural areas. ® Marketing mechanisms need to continue stressing the Internet for lie -trip planning purposes as well as educating service persons and using highway signs and brochure racks for information during the trip. ® Promoting history and culture to nonresidents is a strategy that will continue to bring visitors back to the state especially with the aging of the baby boomers. With the upcoming Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemoration, it is recommended that history and culture are an additional promotional avenue employed by those who promote to nonresidents. INSTITUTE FOR TOURISM & RECREATION RESEARCH: NONRESIDENT SLMMER VISITOR PROFILE - Ill Nonresident SummerMsitor Profile, A Study of Summer Visitors to Montana The purposes of this study were to assess characteristics of nonresident summer visitors to Montana, to determine summer travel patterns, and to update visitor estimation figures for the state of Montana. A summer visitor for this study is defined as a nonresident who traveled in Montana anytime during the four summer months of June, July, August, and September. This summer report is one component of the year-round nonresident visitor study to Montana. The objectives of the year-round study were to: • Describe visitors to Montana in terms of demographics, trip characteristics, travel behavior, and expenditures in the state. • Determine the economic impact of travelers to Montana. • Describe changes in visitor trends since the previous nonresident visitor study. • Determine the main attractions to the state (including Lewis and Clark attractions). • Update information used in ITRR's model to estimate annual visitation to the state and associated economic impacts. This report provides the profile of nonresident visitors to Montana in the summer. Visitors are analyzed and described according to the following categories: 1) All summer visitors are analyzed as one group. 2) The primary purpose for visiting Montana is analyzed and compared to other purposes. 3) 2001 summer visitors are compared to 1996 summer visitors and the differences analyzed. INSTITUTE FOR TOURISM & RECREATION RESEARCH: NONRESIDENT SIMMER VISITOR PROFILE-1 Study Population Travelers to Montana during the summer of 2001 (June through September) were examined for this study. The population of travelers was defined as those persons who entered Montana by private vehicle or commercial air carrier during the study period and whose primary residence was not in Montana at the time. Specifically excluded from the study were those persons who entered Montana on a roadway while traveling in a plainly marked commercial vehicle (e.g. scheduled or chartered bus or a semi truck). Also excluded were those travelers who entered Montana by train, and out-of-state college students living in Montana for educational purposes (they were considered residents). Other than these exclusions, the study attempted to assess all types of travel to the state including travel for pleasure, business, passing through, or any other reason. Population Estimation Model The population estimation model was designed to identify all members of the study population by entry location and month of entry into the state. Entry locations included highway border crossings and major airports. Thirty-nine roadway locations were considered entry points into the state (i.e., Interstates, primary and secondary highways, and minor roads), in addition to the following airports: Billings, Bozeman, Butte, Great Falls, Helena, Kalispell, Missoula and West Yellowstone. The method used to estimate the nonresident travel population was two -fold. First, traffic counts at all Montana borders/entry points were obtained from secondary sources for each month of the study. These sources include: • Helena Regional Airport Authority: Monthly Passenger Deboarding Report by Airport. • Montana Department of Transportation, Planning and Statistics Bureau: Monthly Comparative Automatic Traffic Recorder Data Report. • Montana Department of Transportation, Planning and Statistics Bureau: Biannual Traffic by Sections Report. • Idaho Transportation Department: Monthly Automatic Traffic Counter Bulletin. • Wyoming Department of Transportation, Planning Program: Automatic Traffic Recorder Monthly Summary. • North Dakota Department of Transportation, Planning Division: Monthly Automatic Traffic Data. • The U.S. Department of Treasury, Customs Service: Monthly Canada-to-U.S. Border Crossing Statistics. Second, surveyors identified resident/nonresident proportions at each entry location by observing vehicle license plates and questioning boarding air passengers at Montana airports using random sampling techniques stratified by location and time period. Travel group sizes were obtained while administering nonresident travel questionnaires to potential respondents. Survey Metiiodology and Response Rates Between June 1, 2001 and September 30, 2001, ITRR staff intercepted nonresident highway travel groups at gas stations, rest areas, and Canadian border crossings, and air travel groups at all airports. Intercepts were conducted at three Canadian borders: Port of Roosville north of Eureka, Port of Sweetgrass north of Shelby, and Port of Raymond north of Plentywood. Gas stations in the following communities were used: Libby, Kalispell, Whitefish, West Glacier, St. Mary, Missoula, Lolo, Rocker, Butte, Dillon, Helena, Great Falls, Shelby, Bozeman, West Yellowstone, Livingston, Gardiner, INSTITUTE FOR TOURIS M & RECREATION RESEARCH: NONRESIDENT SLMMER VISITOR PROFILE - 2 Lewistown, Harlowton, Laurel, Red Lodge, Bridger, Billings, Crow Agency, Miles City, Glendive, Sidney, Culbertson, Glasgow and Havre. Rest areas on all three Interstates were used as intercept locations in the summer. When contacted, data was collected from the travel groups, including point of entry into the state, group size and type, residence of the respondent as well as residence of others traveling in their group, travel method, purpose of trip, anticipated length of stay in Montana, direction of travel, and planned exit. This "front-end" data was obtained from virtually every parry contacted and thus represented a set of data unaffected by survey non -response bias. Next, the groups were asked to accept and complete a diary questionnaire of their visit to Montana and to return it by mail in a provided postage -paid envelope. During the four -month study period, 7,738 groups were contacted. Questionnaires were handed to 7,362 groups. Useable questionnaires were returned by 2,931 groups for a response rate of 40 percent. No follow-up measures (i.e., reminder postcards or replacement questionnaires) were used to increase response rate. Due to the nature of the questionnaire (i.e. diary of events as they occurred) and the nature of the methodology (i.e. no name or address information was collected from visitors), it was impossible to mail replacement questionnaires to non -respondents. Front-end data collected from all nonresidents contacted allowed adjustments of the survey results for non -response bias and sampling error. Returned surveys were assigned relative weights based on key variables to adjust for discrepancies with the population model. These key variables included point of entry and purpose of trip. INSTITUTE FOR TOURISM & RECREATION RESEARCH: NONRESIDENT SLMMER VISITOR PROFILE - 3 The results of the summer survey are presented in table format as much as possible in this section. Results will show all respondents in one column followed by a 'breakdown' of the data by primary reason for visiting. The second portion of this chapter has comparison tables between the 1996 summer visitor and the 2001 summer visitor. Throughout the report, numbers that appear in bold represent one or two of the highest percentages for that column and sometimes the lowest number. ALL visitors Table 1: Trip Expenditures —Summer 2001* All Traveler Groups Total # of Summer Groups 2,267,140 Group Size 2.5 # Of Nights in MT 4.2 Average Daily Expenditures $109.51 Total Summer Expenditures $1,042,752,906 Expenditure Distribution" Restaurant/Bar $21.20 Gas/oil $25.14 Retail $24.18 Hotel/motel $11.52 Camping $2.42 Groceries/snacks $9.59 Auto Rental/repair $7.23 Misc. Services $0.61 Transportation $0.14 Entrance fees $3.09 Outfitter/guide $4.39 `All figures are rounded. **Expenditures reflect the average across all groups and do not reflect actual costs of each individual item. Table 2: Percent of Overnight Stays by Region Region % Overnights spent in Region Glacier Count 33% Yellowstone Count 30% Custer Count 14% Gold West Count 11 % Russell Count 9% Missouri Count 2% *Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. INSTITUTE FOR TOURISM & RECREATION RESEARCH. NONRESIDENT SLMMER VISITOR PROFILE - 4 Table 3: Percent of Overniaht Stays for Selected Communities Region City/Location % all overnights within region % all overnights within state Glacier Country (33%) Missoula 20% 7% East & West Glacier, St. Mary 17% 5% Glacier National Park 15% Whitefish 10% 3% Kalispell 8% 3% Columbia Falls 4% Hungry Horse 3% Hamilton 2% Big Fork 2% Yellowstone Country (30%) West Yellowstone 23% 7% Bozeman 19% 6% Gardiner 12% 4% Livingston 10% 3% Yellowstone NP 7% 2% Red Lode 6% Big Sky 3% Cooke City 3% Custer Country (14%) Billings 60% 9% Miles City 11 % Hardin 7% Glendive 5% Gold West Country (11%) Butte 28% 3% Helena 18% 2% Dillon 11 % Anaconda 7% Ennis 5% Deer Lode 5% Russell Country (9%) Great Falls 47% 4% Lewistown 14% Havre 12% Shelby 5% Missouri River Country (2%) Glasgow 33% Sidney/Fairview 24% Plent ood 5% INSTITUTE FOR TOURIS M & RECREATION RESEARCH: NONRESIDENT SIMMER VISITOR PROFILE - 5 Tahle 4- Percent of Nonresidents on Specific Hiahwav Segments* WEST -EAST All Travelers NORTH -SOUTH All Travelers 1-90 ID Border to Missoula 24-26%** 1-15 Canada to Shelby 4% Missoula to Butte 33-37% Shelby to Great Falls 7-13% Butte to Bozeman 33-37% Great Falls to Helena 9-11 % Bozeman to Livingston 39% . Helena to Butte 6% Livingston to Billings 32-35% Butte to Dillon 10-11 % Billings to WY Border 19-21% Dillon to ID Border 11% 1-94 Billings to Miles City 14-15% US93 Canada to Kalispell 2-8% Miles City to Glendive 14% Kalispell to Poison 7-10% Glendive to ND Border 11-12% Poison to Missoula 13-14% ID Border to Kalispell 5-6% Missoula to ID Border 4-6% US2 Kalispell to W. Glacier 14-19% US191 Lewistown to 190 2-3% W. Glacier to Shelb 6-10% Belgrade to Big Sky 8-12% Shelby to Glasgow 4-5% Big Sky to W. Yellowstone 12% Glasgow to ND Border 34% West Yellowstone to Madison Junction 15% MT200 Missoula to Great Falls 3-6% G.Falls to Hwy 87 Jct. 5-8% Hwy 87 to ND Border 14% US59 Miles City to WY Border 1% US12 Helena to Townsend 7% US287 Choteau to 190 Jct. 3-6% Beartooth to Red Ld 5% 190 Jct. to West Yellowstone 5-7% US212 Red Lodge to Laurel 5-7% US89 Canadian B. to Browning 5-12% 190 Jct. to Broadus/WY 3% Browning to Great Falls 4-7% US310 Rockvale to WY Bord. 3% Livingston to Gardiner 19% Going -to -the -Sun Road 15% MT16 Canada to Pien ood 6% *Not all respondents answered the travel route portion of the survey since it regwrea tracing tneir route on a provided map. **The ranges represent more than one road segment between the two points highlighted, e.g. the stretch of road between the Idaho border to Missoula has adjoining roads where travelers could access or leave this stretch before arriving in Missoula. The ranges show the highest and lowest numbers on this portion of the road. INSTITUTE FOR TOURIS M & RECREATION RESEARCH. NONRESIDENT SCMMER VISITOR PROFILE - 6 �� N 0 V) A � O +3+ H o a N !L T p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 Ci 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O H O 00 o CO c0 L O O of - 00 00 o v - <o 00 N — <° 00 04 M Cl) Cl) � tf9 69 d9 69 EH 64 69, 64 (f3 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0 0 — N W 00 �Y C0 O N N O 00 N CO u7 O — CO N (O CO CDM O ODLo c0 V d9 9 6ci9 69 H9 04 69 O Ef9 U m Y � � O cu c CL 0. u) m m j w n 00 � "O LL O L j O mc C OCO O V) m p O — c C y O c �° m m m J 0CL � Q N E O C N y O f6 U <E O Mn H M rn rn if 0) ui 0) C) to CD 0) C) O co 0) cn 0 0 o oo� Cl) c V � N O: V 0 c') c7 o N O O O Cl.O co Q U.) (C 64 Cl) W O O o 0 0 0 0 m a 0 cN0 n M co M O o O p O O m 0) Q O O _ 691 Cl) 00 O o o Lo o O O CV cc ai N cN0 cccl _ co 00 00, 0 O C O C) c0) 0 r 000 N _ En co O) 0 0 -0,cm o oocq N C\ O c0 Cli V _ 0 0) O O o o O o CD O CD C O O d co C, N CD L p m V 64 co 0) cm:)O 0 (0 c 0 0 0 0 0? N N O c') LC) EFT Cn Vi ch ai N O O cV _ O a c Cf O �I R E ° C 4 c) E- a cm G H I— V1 T C C i c9 m > O B O 0 `o co a m c O m ° w ° CL rn c C N 2 C ~ ~ co 6 C �a -Ca) ° O V 0 c O v z c ° I O > z z > F a m Q O E L w 0 ~ > O U d m ro m o. Z 0 m m OR m a m c -0 m a m d -0 o a C v m m m C EO Y _ O O N O C L U N E _ ( w CL aL N C m Cc 0 y 'O a O N U C' C L W O - N C .0 CL .L.. O O O Cl c O o 0 0 c O N O O C O C, V c O co M m c N N c c0 c0 m n Ci L v N 69 69 69 0 O C) O O c O O O c O O O c O 0 V V c O m m c clCl0 P� vi Ci r O_ 0o C, r) 69 tel 69 Cf O O O C)c O O O O c o v O O C O c0 O 0 c O N O O c v_ Ln Ct v v r- o < n v v 69 69 69 6' vi m m E O O N (V c LL