以下文章来源于旅界 ，作者theodore熙少 旅界 . 跟踪时代浪潮，讲述文旅商业好故事。 本文来自微信公众号： 旅界 （ID：tourismzonenews） ，作者：theodore熙少，题图来自：AI生成 01 这几年，从濒临破产的张家界大庸古城到国内一座座空城抑或烂尾的数亿、十几亿元大型文旅项目背 后，往往有很多乱七八糟的新兴名词。 比如，我们说个最常见的——EPCO （工程、采购、施工、运营） 。 就这四个字母，普通人绝对一头雾水，做文旅的老板们个个讲起来却头头是道，眼睛放光，自带一种 玩明白了文旅全产业链闭环的自信，但一通猛如虎操作下来，往往项目一地鸡毛。 问题，出在了哪里？ 我突然想起前段时间新认识的读者朋友许总，他原本干古建施工出身，盖庙、修祠堂、做仿古街是过 去十年的主业，现在转型干乡村振兴文旅项目，靠一整套EPCO打包模式，横跨工程、融资、招商、 运营。 说到最引以为傲的，许总称自己在华南某地运营一个总投资几十亿的乡村文旅项目，项目分三期，含 非遗街区、高空玻璃桥、康养民宿、研学营地…… 听上去就很宏大，但我按照固有思维问了一句，"现在本质上，你们还是靠政府钱撑着吧？" 许总回了句模棱两 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the EPCO model in the context of China's cultural tourism projects, highlighting its efficiency and the underlying risks associated with its implementation [12][66]. Group 1: EPCO Model Overview - EPCO stands for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Operation, representing a comprehensive approach to managing cultural tourism projects [2][12]. - The model is perceived as a solution for project management, allowing a single team to handle design, construction, procurement, and operation, with minimal government involvement [12][41]. - The model's efficiency is questioned, as it often leads to profit manipulation at each stage, prioritizing financial gain over project quality [14][46]. Group 2: Financial Mechanisms - The model relies heavily on government funding, particularly through "rural revitalization funds," which are essentially subsidized loans [6][8]. - Companies involved in EPCO projects often bear the interest costs of these loans, which can be as high as 4.5% annually [8][10]. - The financial structure allows companies to generate revenue through various means, including design fees and procurement markups, often before the project is completed [41][56]. Group 3: Operational Challenges - The operational phase of EPCO projects focuses on maintaining stability rather than achieving long-term success, with the primary goal being to avoid project failure [36][38]. - The model encourages a cycle of financial maneuvering, where companies aim to profit from each phase of the project lifecycle, often at the expense of sustainable development [55][66]. - The reliance on government support and the potential for changing political landscapes pose significant risks to the sustainability of these projects [60][62]. Group 4: Industry Implications - The popularity of the EPCO model stems from its ability to meet governmental performance metrics without requiring substantial project success [48][54]. - The model creates a disconnect between project execution and actual visitor engagement, leading to a façade of success that may not reflect reality [46][70]. - As the industry continues to adopt this model, the long-term viability of cultural tourism projects remains uncertain, with many projects potentially failing to deliver on their promises [69][70].