participated more often in swimming and other sports than other age groups, ...... Sign of parameter estimate. WTP = 20. Swimming. Horses. Distance. WTP = 30.
UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA
Natural Resources &Environmental Research Center
אוניברסיטת חיפה
המרכז לחקר משאבי טבע וסביבה
TEL-HAI RODMAN REGIONAL COLLEGE
חי-מרכז להשכלה תל רודמן. ומ.ע"ש ג
EXPECTED RECREATIONAL BENEFITS OF THE HULA PROJECT: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Final Report
Mira G. Baron, Natalia Zaitsev and Mordechai Shechter
Submitted to the Hula Project Authority MIGAL - Galilee Technological Center
September 1997
Principal Researchers: Dr. Mira G. Baron Natural Resources and Environmental Research Center, University of Haifa, and Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology Dr. Natalia Zaitsev Natural Resource and Environmental Research Center, University of Haifa, Research Branch at the Tel-Hai Rodman Galilee College, Upper Galilee Prof. Mordechai Shechter Natural Resources and Environmental Research Center, Department of Economics, University of Haifa Research Assistants: Saggi Nevo (M.A) Natural Resources and Environmental Research Center, University of Haifa
Zvi Asher (B.A) Natural Resources and Environmental Research Center, University of Haifa
Page numbers
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was funded by the Hula Project Authority: Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael, Israel Land Administration, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Tourism, Water Commission, Ministry of the Interior, Regional Councils: Upper Galilee, Merom Galil, Mevo Hamma Thanks are due to Professor Michael Nudelman who participated in the early stages of the research. We would like to thank the following people and organizations: Mr. Amos Harpas, the Chairman of the Research Committee in the Hula Professor Moshe Gophen, the Scientific Coordinator of the research works in the Hula Mr. Giora Shaham, the manager of the Project. Ms. Dina Weinstein, Nature Reserve Authority Ms. Aviva Leonov, Nature Reserve Authority Mr. Avi Sharon, Golan Regional Council Mr. Amitai Rotem, National Parks Authority Mr. Moshe Atiya, the Galilee Tourist Authority Our thanks to the Nature Reserve Authority, National Parks Authority, Golan Regional Council for their permission to conduct surveys in the Upper Galilee parks. Thanks to the managers and workers of the parks who were very helpful and cooperative.
Of course, the authors remain solely responsible for any remaining errors.
Page numbers
ABSTRACT
The Hula Project aims at recreating a marsh in order to avoid the negative environmental externalities of the current situation - nitrification of the Kinneret, spontaneous fires, low water level. Recreating the marsh landscape is achieved by digging canals and a lake, “creating” islands, populating the area with wild animals, planting characteristic vegetation, and attracting birds. It is hoped that this landscape will be attractive to recreation, prompting safari, bird watching, and boating. The research assesses the expected benefits of the Project for entrepreneurs and for society. The study is based on surveys of Israeli recreationists that were conducted in all seasons in 19951996. The surveys were conducted in seven recreational sites in Upper Galilee. Altogether 800 people were interviewed. The questionnaire included questions on recreational patterns in existing parks, on willingness to visit a hypothetical park, the Hula Project, willingness to pay an entrance fee, etc. The study summarizes the recreation patterns in existing parks and nature reserves in Upper Galilee: It is estimated that 700,000 people visit the Upper Galilee parks annually. 95% of the visitors visited the area in addition to the current visit within the last five years, and 72% visited within the past twelve months. The activities in the parks vary by season. Picnicking is the most popular activity and 60-94% engage in it (it is more popular in the winter than in summer). Recreation is characterized by young visitors. Only 8% of the visitors are 50 years and older vs. 31% in the general population. People go to the parks in large groups. Among the young visitors, those in the 18-29 age-group, 50% go in a group of at least 4 members, but among those in the 30-49 age-group these groups constitute 84%. These two groups constitute 28% and 63% of the visitors respectively. The length of stay varies by season. In the summer 64% come for a few days, while in the winter and spring only 30% stay overnight. The length of stay has implications for visiting restaurants and using accommodation facilities. Throughout the year about 50% ate at a restaurant or planned to visit one during their stay in the area. The division between those who ate or planned to eat at a restaurant varies by season. In the summer 36% of the visitors ate at a restaurant during the current visit, and another 15% planned to do so. In the winter 24% ate at a restaurant and 28% planned to do so . The major difference between Page numbers
the seasons is in the mean expenditure per family for those who ate in a restaurant. It varies between NIS 273 in summer and NIS 57 in winter. The use of accommodation facilities means that 33% stay at bed & breakfast accommodation (zimmers), 32% stay in guest houses and hotels, 17% in tents and bungalows, and the rest stay with friends and family. Capacity of hotel rooms and beds in the area is apparently in excess. Another question analyzed is the actual behavior of recreationists, in terms of the distance between two adjacent groups of visitors. It was observed that 23% of the groups are less than 5 meters apart, and 61% of the groups are less than 10 meters apart. The observed proximity is not disturbing (a subjective reaction). When asked if the neighbors disturbed them, 84% answered that they were not disturbed, and only 3% were very disturbed. We have to conclude that the visitors are tolerant to proximity. Analyzing the reaction to proximity using logistic analysis, we find that income increased the response of being disturbed, engaging in picnic made people more tolerant, and engaging in sport made people less tolerant.
In analyzing the response to a hypothetical non-existing park, the Hula Project, we addressed several issues: Evaluating the expected entrance fee. Using the Contingent Valuation Method we evaluate the Willingness To Pay (WTP) entrance fee. On average people are willing to pay NIS 30. 63.5% of the respondents are willing to pay NIS 30 and more. Only 1% of the respondents refuse to pay at all. Analysis of the factors affecting WTP shows that income affects positively (normal good), family size affects negatively, distance affects positively, and the activities preferred by the individual affect as follows: safari, a unique activity to the park, affects positively, horse riding and swimming affect negatively. The last two activities are offered at alternative sites with a lower entrance fee, and the result is reasonable. Evaluating the expected number of visitors. 87% of the visitors to Upper Galilee would like to visit the Hula Project. If the park were opened today, and NIS 30 were charged, 380,000 visitors may be expected. Due to the expected increase in population and increase in standard of living we expect an Page numbers
annual increase in the number of visitors by 2-4% per year. In ten years 460,000-560,000 visitors are expected, besides overseas tourists. Expected revenues and benefits were calculated assuming NIS 30 per person is charged. Since 380,000 visitors are expected, annual revenues of NIS 11.4 million are expected in the first year of operation. Under reasonable assumptions, in 25 years of operation a present value in the range of NIS 123-323 million may be expected. The expected social benefits were calculated referring to the WTP of interviewees to pay an entrance fee of NIS 30 and higher values. At the first year of operation the benefits are expected to total NIS 14.1 million. In 25 years of operation, a present value of total benefits in the range of NIS 152-400 million may be expected. The study shows that there is a large interest in visiting the Project, and people are willing to pay high sums as entrance fee. It is likely that the project will generate revenues to the entrepreneurs, and that society will earn net benefits.
Page numbers
TABLE OF CONTENTS Final Report...........................................................................................................................................i Mira G. Baron, Natalia Zaitsev and Mordechai Shechter................................................................ ................i
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE……...………...………………………………………………49 APPENDIX B: LIST OF VARIABLES ….………………...………………..…..…………………….. 60 APPENDIX C: LOGISTIREGRESSION…………………………………………...……………61 APPENDIX D: MATHEMATICAL APPENDIX…………………………………………………… …..……..64
Page numbers
LIST OF TABLES Table C1. Logistic Model for Predicting WTP in Hula Project 62 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Expected Demand Curve for the Hula Project Using CVM.......................................... ....39 Figure 2. Revenues, Total Benefits and Net Benefits as Measured from a Demand Curve.............. 40
Page numbers
INTRODUCTION
The Hula Project in the north of Israel aims at recreating a marsh that was drained in the early 1950s. The re-flooding aims at solving environmental problems such as nitrification of Lake Kinneret, level and quality of water, dust, spontaneous fires, and non-productive soil and also regional unemployment. Recreating the marsh landscape is achieved by digging canals and a lake, “creating” islands, populating the area with wild animals, planting characteristic vegetation, and attracting birds (to recreate the role of the marsh in the birds’ migration route).The planners hope that this landscape will be attractive for recreation, fostering safaris, bird watching, boating, picnicking, etc. The present report aims at predicting the recreation potential of the area, referred to as the Hula Project. It deals with the following issues: - the recreation potential in the Hula Project; -activities that will attract potential visitors; - the expected recreational benefits in economic terms from the Hula Project; - the interaction of environment and human beings with respect to social carrying capacity.
Chapter 1 describes surveys conducted in various Upper Galilee parks, where samples of recreationists were interviewed in different seasons. At present 700,000 recreationists are estimated to visit Upper Galilee annually, besides overseas tourists. The remaining chapters are divided into two major parts: the first (Chapters 2 and 3) analyze the recreational patterns in already existing Upper Galilee parks. Chapter 2 focuses on activities undertaken, number of past visits , visits to restaurants, staying in accommodation facilities, etc. Chapter 3 analyzes the reaction of visitors to proximity and close contact, asking if visitors are disturbed if the site is crowded. The second part (Chapter 4) deals with the expected demand for the new Hula Project. We estimated the expected revenues and benefits from operating the park, from answers to questions on willingness to visit a hypothetical park and willingness to pay entrance fees. Chapter 5 offers concluding remarks. CHAPTER 1
Pag e
THE SURVEYS 1.1 The Surveys Forecasting the demand for a non-existing, planned park could be based on a national sample or on an on-site survey conducted at existing parks. We decided against a national survey since a high percentage of the population does not actively participate in recreation: only 26 percent of the urban Jewish population visited Upper Galilee in 1994 for recreation purposes (Fleisher and Saati, 1994), and the figures for non-Jews and for the rural population are unknown. A national survey would require many interviews to get a reasonable representation of people acquainted with recreation in the area, and would be costly. Since our budget was limited, we opted for an on-site survey of visitors to existing Upper Galilee parks. This choice ensured that the interviewees were familiar with the area and its potential for recreation, travel conditions, lodging conditions, etc. We conducted surveys in four different seasons: August 1995, in the peak of the summer vacation period in Israel (the effective size of this sub-sample was 227 observations), October during the Succoth holiday (the effective size of this sub-sample was 198 observations), March 1996, the end of the winter season (the effective size of this sub-sample was 177 observations), and May and June 1996 (the effective size of this sub-samples was 197 observations). The effective size of the entire sample of seven sub-samples was 799 observations. Seven recreational sites were included in the surveys: Banias, Tel Dan, Nahal Ayun (Tanur), Hula Reserve, Hula Project, Hurshat Tal and Yarden Park. In the new Hula Project we interviewed a small group of visitors only in the winter (the Hula Park is still at the construction stage). Sites were included or excluded for various reasons. Some sites are closed in certain seasons, e.g., Nahal Ayun in the ‘dry’ season, whereas Hurshat Tal, hardly operates in the cold season. All these parks are located in Upper Galilee (in the north of Israel). Each site is unique in geographical characteristics, landscape, and attractions, a fact which affects the results discussed, such as the activities characteristic to each site (see Chapter 2). Although these sites offer different recreational attractions from those offered by the planned Hula Project, we surmised that the sites could offer the best basis for making projections for the new site.
Pag e
The interviewers were instructed to sample groups of vacationers randomly (a family or a group of individuals or a few families staying together). In each group, one individual was chosen to represent the group as a whole. Group size, group activities and group age composition were probed in the questionnaire. Although the individuals answered according to their own preferences, we assume that in certain aspects their views represent the group as a whole.
1.2 The Questionnaire The questionnaire contains five categories of questions: * Hypothetical questions about the proposed Hula Park * Recreational patterns of visits to existing parks: number of past visits, length of stay, expenditure, activities, etc. * Social carrying capacity * Demographic and socio-economic characteristics.
Frequency tables for all responses and for each season are given in Appendix A.
1.3 Sample Size and Sampling Ratio The surveys were conducted on seven days in seven different parks. The sampling ratio varied by season and by recreation site between 0.07 and 0.61, members. The sampling ratio was calculated by dividing the number sampled, assuming that the mean group has 6 members, by the number of visitors on the same date in the specific site: [Number Interviewed in Site j at Date t] multiplied by [Mean Size of a Group] divided by [Number of Visitors in Site j at Date t]. For example, the sampling ratio at the Banias (site j) in the summer (date t ) is 27 x 6 /1338 = 0.12. The number of visitors on our survey days was provided by the Nature Reserves Authority. These are presented in Table 1, together with the number of respondents interviewed at those sites. (the number of visitors includes adults and children. We could not separate the overseas tourists from the total.)
Pag e
Table 1. Number of Visitors, Interviewees and Sampling Ratio at the Survey Days Site Hula Reserve Number of visitors Number interviewed (adults) Sampling ratio Tel Dan Number of visitors Number interviewed (adults) Sampling ratio Hurshat Tal Number of visitors Number interviewed (adults) Sampling ratio Banias Number of visitors Number interviewed (adults) Sampling ratio Yarden Park Number of visitors Number interviewed (adults) Sampling ratio Nahal Ayun Number of visitors Number interviewed (adults) Sampling ratio New Hula Project Number interviewed (adults)
Date: 19.8. 1995
Date: 22.8. 1995
Date: 11.10. 1995
Date: 14.10. 1995
Date: 16.3. 1996
Date: 18.5. 1996
Date: 1.6. 1996
340 29 0.51
504 16 0.19
1028 0 0
1951 0 0
847 36 0.25
317 0 0
418 0 0
1122 32 0.17
1801 30 0.10
1721 26 0.09
1432 30 0.12
992 45 0.27
936 34 0.22
977 42 0.26
* 31 -
* 30 -
* 27 -
* 0 0
* 0 0
* 0 0
* 38 -
1560 27 0.10
2469 32 0.08
2620 24 0.05
3099 0 0
1962 40 0.12
1576 28 0.10
1562 22 0.08
* 0 0
* 0 0
* 34 -
* 43 -
* 0 0
* 0 0
* 0 0
* 0 0
* 0 0
* 0 0
* 0 0
724 37 0.30
267 30 0.67
1052 6 0.03
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
*number of visitors is not available
Pag e
1.4 Demographic and Socio-Economic Profile Comparing the characteristics of the visitors at Upper Galilee parks with the Israeli population at large, one may infer that the visitors are more educated, have a higher income, are mostly in the 3040 age group, and a high percentage of them have larger households (see Table 2). These socio-economic characteristics are typical for visitors at recreation sites in Israel. Similar respondents’ features were found in surveys in the Carmel Park (see Enis et al., 1974; Shechter and Baron, 1976; Nevo et al., 1997).
Table
2.
Demographic
and
Socio-Economic
Characteristics:
Sample
vs.
Israeli
Population* Characteristics Education: 10 years’ schooling or less University degree Gross income per family** above national average about national average below national average Car ownership Age structure (for adults 18+) 18-29 30-49 older than 50 Family structure 4 members or less 5 members or more
Sample (%)
Israeli population (%)
4.7 32.5
13.1 18.7
50.3 26.9 22.8 82.8
50.0 10.0 40.0 50.4
28.4 63.1 8.5
30.2 39.1 30.7
62.2 37.8
70.0 30.0
* Data for the Israeli population are based on the Central Bureau of Statistics,Statistical Yearbook, 1995 ** The most recent data on gross average income are from a survey conducted in 1992/1993, and it was NIS 5,348 Our question related to this value, although in 1995/1996, the income was most probably higher.
Pag e
CHAPTER 2 RECREATIONAL PATTERNS IN THE UPPER GALILEE AREA This chapter summarizes the recreation patterns in existing parks and nature reserves in Upper Galilee. It is estimated that 700,000 people visit the parks annually. 95% of the visitors visited the area in addition to the current visit within the last five years, and 72% visited within the past twelve months. The activities in the parks vary by season. Picnicking is the most popular activity and 6094% engage in it (it is more popular in the winter than in summer). Recreation is characterized by young visitors. Only 8% of the visitors are 50 years and older vs. 31% in the general population. People go to the parks in large groups. Among the young visitors, of those in the 18-29 age-group, 50% go in a group of at least 4 members, but among those of the 30-49 age-group these groups constitute 84%. These two groups constitute 28% and 63% of the visitors respectively. The length of the stay varies by season. In the summer 64% come for a few days, while in the winter and spring only 30% stay overnight. The length of stay has implications for visiting restaurants and to using accommodation facilities. Throughout the year about 50%ate at a restaurant or planned to visit during their stay in the area. The division between those who ate or planned to eat varies by season. In the summer 36% of the visitors ate at a restaurant during the current visit, and another 15% planned to eat in a restaurant. In the winter 24% ate at a restaurant and 28% planned to eat. The major difference between the seasons is in the mean expenditure per family for those who ate in a restaurant. It varies between NIS 273 in summer and NIS 57 in winter. The use of accommodation facilities means that 33% stay at bed & breakfast accommodation (zimmers), 32% stay in guest houses and hotels, 17% in tents and bungalows, and the rest stay with friends and family. Capacity of hotel rooms and beds in the area is apparently in excess.
This chapter reviews different aspects of the current recreational patterns in Upper Galilee as reflected in our survey. It provides information on people’s actual behavior (revealed behavior) in the various parks, to be compared with their responses to a hypothetical situation regarding the Hula Project (see Chapter 4).
2.1 Number of Visitors to the Upper Galilee Area A major question of importance for studying present recreation is estimating the total number of visitors in the area. Two alternatives are discussed: Fleisher and Saati (1995) studied the recreational patterns in the Upper Galilee area. Using a national survey of the adult Jewish urban population they estimated that 38% visited the area in the twelve months prior to the survey, and 68% of these visits were for recreation, which means that 26% of the Jewish urban population were in Upper Galilee for recreation purposes. Since the survey was not conducted among the non-Jewish population, we have to make assumptions regarding their behavior.
Pag e
We also have to make assumptions regarding the Jewish non-urban population since they were not included in the survey, as well. A maximal number of visitors results from the assumption that the recreation patterns in the entire Israeli population are like those among those interviewed (justification for assuming that the non-Jewish population behaves like the Jewish population might be the fact that they reside closer to the Galilee area than the majority of the Jewish population). From the size of the Israeli population of 1995, a maximum estimate of Israelis vacating in Upper Galilee in 1995 is estimated at 1.4 million people (excluding the overseas tourists who visited the area). Use of alternative assumptions for non-Jews and for non-urban population will result in lower estimates. As the second alternative, we collected data on the number of visitors at the major parks in the 1 Galilee area: Banias, Tel Dan, Hula Reserve, Hurshat Tal and Nahal Ayun (see Table 3) .
Table 3. Actual Number of Visitors at Upper Galilee Recreation Sites Number of visitors Sites Banias Tel Dan Nahal Ayun Hula Reserve Hurshat Tal Total Israelis
1994 213,155 171,068 45,947 71,842 66,617 568,629
1995 254,986 188,978 78,738 88,759 81,139 692,600
Total overseas tourists % of tourists of all visitors
183,522 24.4
191,662 21.7
In 1994 the total number of visits by Israelis at these parks was 570,000, and in 1995 it increased to 700,000. We decided to adopt the number of 700,000 as a reasonable baseline estimate of the number of visitors at parks in the region. We are aware that some people might visit other parks than those in our survey of the region e.g., Beit Ussishkin, Tel Hai, etc., so our figure may be an underestimate. But it may also be an overestimate: (a) high percentage of visitors move from one site to another (see Section 2.5) and are therefore counted more than once, wherever they pay an entrance fee; (b) some people visit the region more than once a year (see Section 2.2), and are counted on each visit. To .The data was provided by the Nature Reserve Authority and by the National Parks Authority 1 Pag e
summarize, throughout this document the figure 700.000 is taken as the number of visitors to the area in 1995. We disregard overseas tourists, and concentrate on the behavior of Israelis. The gap between the values of 1.4 million and 0.7 million may seem unreasonable. Note, however, that some people interviewed at home misremembered visits not made during the previous 12 months as if they had been; some among the 28% who went to Galilee for recreation traveled the area without visiting parks, and were not counted;, they might include visitors to restaurants in the area, people going to festivals, or just driving around.
2.2 Previous Visits in the Preceding Five Years Table 4 shows that according to our surveys, 95% of the respondents visited Upper Galilee, in addition to the current visit, during the preceding five years. 72% of the respondents visited Upper Galilee in the preceding 12 months, but the percentage varies according to the distance traveled from their residential origin to Upper Galilee. The larger the distance traveled, with higher travel costs, the smaller the percentage of visitors to the area more than once in the previous 12 months, and the smaller the average number of visits per visitor during this period. Most of the visitors, regardless of where they reside, visited Upper Galilee previously in the preceding five years. Out of those living within 49 km of Upper Galilee 98% visited in the preceding five years; the percentage slightly decreases to 95% for those living 150 km and more away. The effect of distance is crucial for visits during the preceding12 months: the respective percentages are 88% and 57%.. As expected, the complementary percentage, the percentage of those who visited (in addition to the current visit) within the preceding 1-5 years, increases with distance. This result partly reflects the ‘selection’ procedure. The question regarding visits 1-5 years previously was addressed only to those who did not visit during the last year.
Table 4. Previous Visits to Upper Galilee by Distance Traveled Percentage of visitors ( % of distance
group)
Pag e
Mean of
number visits
Distance
previous
(km)
within the within the previous 12 previous 1-5 months years 87.7 10.5 73.5 21.4 66.6 29.3 57.4 38.0
0 - 49 50 - 99 100 - 149 150 +
visits
no visit total (% within of the visitors) previous 5 years
1.8 5.1 5.1 4.6
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
within the previous 12 months
within the previous 1-5 years*
3.4 2.5 2.3 2.3
2.8 2.6 2.7 2.7
* The mean number refers only to those who visited 1-5 years previously - a period of four years. Consequently we do not have information on those who have visited in the previous year and also visited 1-5 years previously.
Table 4 shows the distribution of previous visits as a function of distance traveled. The change in the number of visits per visitor is interesting. The number of visits slightly decreased with the distance traveled for those visiting within the previous 12 months from 3.4 to 2.3. The number of visits within the previous 1-5 years is for a period of four years, and not a single year, and applies only to those who did not visit in the previous year. To conclude, visits to Upper Galilee are apparently a recurrent rather than a rare experience for most of visitors. Note that the question did not refer to visits to a specific park, but the area in general.
Pag e
2.3 Activities at the Recreation Sites The interviewees were asked about the two activities they did at the park where they were interviewed. Since the interviewees were asked about two activities, the columns in the table reporting the answers for each site sum to more than 100%. The most common activities were hiking, picnicking, and swimming. The type of recreational activity depends on the season (see below). Table 5 presents the (significant) relationship between activities and the survey season2.
Table 5. Activities and Survey Season Activities Summer Swimming 31.7 Picnic 53.7 Hiking 70.9 Sports 2.2 Other 1.8 Chi - square value - 175.55
Seasons Fall Winter 31.7 1.1 59.1 36.7 59.1 93.8 7.6 5.1 28.3* 5.1** Degrees of freedom - 12
Spring 22.3 44.7 79.2 8.1 2.5 P< 0.0001
* “Other” in fall represents mainly rafting. This activity characterizes the Yarden Park, where we interviewed only in fall. ** “Other” in winter represents mainly fishing and bird watching in the Hula Project, where we interviewed only in winter. The size of the sample in the Hula Project is too small for any significant conclusions.
Table 5 shows that the activities vary by season. Hiking was very popular in the cold seasons, and it lost popularity to swimming when it gets warmer. Picnicking retained a similar importance throughout the year. The results partly reflect the fact that interviews were conducted in each season, at different sites (see Section 1.1). We find a significant relationship between the respondent’s age and the activities specified. All agegroups engaged in hiking more than in other activities (Table 6), but visitors in the 18-29 age-group 2
The chi-square and the probability values show that the relationship is significant, meaning that there is a probability (as specified) that the activities are the same for all sites (the null hypothesis). Since the probability is low (less than 0.0001 in this case) we cannot accept this claim but reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the activities are different (the alternative hypothesis). In the following analysis we refer to a relationship as significant when the probability is smaller than 0.10. The test is performed using the chi-square values.
Pag e
participated more often in swimming and other sports than other age groups, while visitors in the 30+ age-group engaged more in hiking.
Table 6. Interviewee’s Age and Preferred Activities Activities done 18-29 Swimming Picnic Hiking Sports Other Total Chi-square 15.107
Age-groups 30-49
older than 50 9.9 30.7 49.5 2.0 7.9 100.0 P
