On the other hand, is the ticket price really as low as possible? Many people think that public resources are owned by the whole people, and tickets can only be collected symbolically or simply free. They also cited foreign examples to prove that everything from the Louvre in France to Yellowstone National Park in the United States is open to tourists from all over the world at extremely low ticket prices. This view has certain rationality. In fact, it is an internationally recognized trend for public scenic spots to gradually implement low-cost tickets or free tickets. However, we should also see that foreign countries can do this because the main funds for maintaining and operating these scenic spots come from subsidies from special state funds. Moreover, they have a relatively mature industrial chain and will not have much impact because of the decrease in ticket revenue.
On the other hand, in China, a large number of scenic spots are distributed in the economically backward central and western regions. On the one hand, local financial resources are limited, and it is unrealistic to subsidize scenic spot tickets by finance; On the other hand, many scenic spots are still in the stage of development and construction, lacking the support of derivative industries and limited hematopoietic capacity. Sudden price cuts may make the operation of scenic spots unsustainable. Therefore, at this stage, ultra-low-priced tickets can be implemented in developed areas with strong financial resources or national scenic spots with guaranteed tourists. As for other places, we need to make a careful decision.
In fact, people complain that the ticket price is too high and they don't ask for free. The composition of tickets is opaque, and the price hearing is "briefing". All of them have caused the public to fall into distrust of the ticket fees for scenic spots. Many people think that rising costs are just an excuse for price increases in scenic spots. Therefore, slimming tickets have become the proper meaning. It stands to reason that the ticket revenue is mainly used for the normal operation of the scenic spot. But in real life, a small ticket includes people's livelihood projects, infrastructure construction costs, new rural construction funds and so on. It is often included in less than half of the income dominated by scenic spots. In this context, adjusting the ticket price has become a Dojo in a snail's shell-it can't be opened. Only by cleaning up the gray part and stripping off the expenses unrelated to the construction and management of scenic spots will there be more room for manoeuvre in fare adjustment.
At the same time, the hearing procedure of ticket pricing must be transparent. In the past, ticket price hearings in scenic spots in some places often became "ventilation meetings". A very important reason is that there are too many local interests in the hearing process, but some citizen representatives who speak for consumers are often confused about the tickets and can't say why. Therefore, only by allowing more informed citizens' representatives to participate in the fare hearing and fully respecting their right of expression can people's doubts and antipathy to fare adjustment be eliminated. In order to achieve this effect, the hearing is required not only to strictly abide by the procedures of all links, but also to quote the cost audit report of an authoritative third party, so that the public's opinions can be targeted.
There are enough complaints about the ticket price increase in scenic spots, and there are also many opinions issued by relevant departments. We hope that after a year of banning motorcycles, there will be a substantial breakthrough in the reform of ticket prices in scenic spots.