The authority of central China's Lushan National Park made a proposal to raise the park's entrance ticket price from the current 135 yuan to 230 yuan. But at a public hearing held by the Committee of Reform and Development of Jiangxi Province, such a proposal received opposing voices from many sides.
The State Committee of Reform and Development regulates once a national park has raised its ticket price, it cannot apply for another price hike for three years. Lushan National Park is a renowned summer resort and sanatorium in Jiangxi Province. It has raised ticket prices three times between 1997 and 2003. The current application for the fourth price hike is legally sound.
The park authority says a new price hike has three positive benefits. First, it will bring in more income to further develop and improve the park's tourism infrastructure. Second, the current ticket price is relatively low compared to other top national parks in the world, so it should match international standards. Lastly, the new ticket price could put off some tourists to prevent the national park from overexploitation.
Such a proposal garnered opposing voices from all the representatives who attended the public hearing.
Representative from the Worker's and Consumers Union say the majority of consumers is not likely to afford such a high price and the price hike actually shuts the door to low-income tourists.
Another hot topic debated at the hearing is that the 230-yuan ticket doesn't actually cover all of Lushan's scenic spots. Extra tickets have to be bought before visitors can visit some of Lushan's best scenic spots. Some representatives say this is against the law.
Other representatives pointed out setting different prices during peak and low seasons are more effective to control tourist inflow. Price hikes are not the only way to protect the national park.
Officials from the provincial pricing office will take all the opinions from the public hearing into consideration. A report concerning the national park's proposed price hike will be sent to the provincial government two weeks later.
(CRI November 22, 2006)