Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the EPCO (Engineering, Procurement, Construction, Operation) model in the context of China's cultural tourism projects, highlighting its efficiency and the underlying risks associated with profit distribution and project sustainability [4][13][41]. Group 1: EPCO Model Overview - The EPCO model is presented as a comprehensive solution for cultural tourism projects, where a single team manages design, construction, procurement, and operation, allowing the government to focus on funding and approvals [13][14][40]. - The model is criticized for being a profit transfer mechanism, where each stage can be manipulated for financial gain, often at the expense of project quality and sustainability [15][39]. Group 2: Components of EPCO - **Engineering (E)**: The design phase prioritizes meeting government approval rather than attracting tourists, leading to repetitive and formulaic project designs [18][20][22]. - **Procurement (P)**: This phase is characterized by profit manipulation through controlled purchasing, where companies involved often have interlinked relationships, creating an "internal circulation" of profits [23][26][28]. - **Construction (C)**: The construction phase allows for dynamic budget management, where costs can be adjusted based on project changes, often leading to additional expenses [29][33]. - **Operation (O)**: The operational phase focuses on maintaining project viability rather than achieving long-term success, with an emphasis on minimizing losses rather than maximizing visitor engagement [35][38]. Group 3: Government and Corporate Dynamics - Local governments view EPCO projects as a way to achieve performance metrics without deep involvement, often prioritizing project initiation over actual outcomes [42][44]. - Companies involved in EPCO projects aim to generate cash flow through various stages, relying on government support and financial maneuvering to sustain operations [49][50]. Group 4: Risks and Sustainability - The article highlights significant risks within the EPCO model, including potential changes in local government priorities, tightening of financial policies, and public scrutiny, which could jeopardize project viability [51][52][54]. - The sustainability of the EPCO model is questioned, as it often leads to projects that appear successful on paper but fail to deliver real value or engagement in practice [56][58].

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].