Recently, Changping District of Beijing announced the handling results of two outdoor mountaineering rescue cases: 16 parties donated 280 life jackets to mountainous villages and completed the recovery of rescue costs through a public welfare compensation model. It is reported that this is the first public welfare compensation case for outdoor rescue costs in Beijing, providing a new model for solving the problem of recovering outdoor rescue costs nationwide. I used to think that exploring the mountains was a personal freedom, and that government rescue was only natural in case of danger. It wasn't until I read this case that I realized that reckless adventure consumes valuable public resources, and if something goes wrong, I must take responsibility for my actions. ”A Beijing backpacker told a reporter from the Rule of Law Daily that the case has sparked heated discussions within the backpacker community. In recent years, with the rise of outdoor sports, it is not uncommon for backpackers to illegally enter undeveloped areas and become trapped, leading to the use of public resources for rescue. Every rescue operation may be accompanied by a large amount of manpower, material resources, and financial investment from departments such as fire, emergency, and public security. Should public resources serve as a "fallback" for individual violations? How to recover from the violating explorers? Based on the practice of the first outdoor risky rescue expense public welfare compensation case in Beijing, the reporter interviewed relevant experts. On November 29, 2025, two mountain climbing incidents occurred in Changping District within a few hours, causing rescue personnel to experience a high-intensity "continuous rotation" rescue. At around 18:00 on the same day, 7 adults led 6 minors into an undeveloped area in Shisanling Town to climb the mountain without authorization. They went missing due to the complex terrain and darkening sky on the way. After receiving the alarm, Changping District immediately activated emergency response, with multiple departments including emergency management, fire rescue, and public security working together to deploy a large number of rescue forces for search and rescue. Until 3am the next day, 13 trapped individuals were safely rescued. A wave has not yet subsided, and another wave has risen. At around 22:00 on the same day, a message for help came from the vicinity of Dayangshan in Yanshou Town, Changping District. Three adult hikers were trapped in the mountains due to physical exhaustion and unable to descend on their own. The Emergency Management Bureau of Changping District quickly dispatched the Forest Defense Brigade to the scene for rescue. After nearly 8 hours of arduous trekking, the trapped personnel were safely escorted down the mountain at 6am the next morning. The two rescue operations took a total of nearly 17 hours, involving multiple rescue teams, various rescue equipment, and transportation vehicles. According to the head of Changping District Emergency Management Bureau, the direct economic cost exceeds 150000 yuan. After the rescue was completed, the Emergency Management Bureau of Changping District, in accordance with the "Changping District Outdoor Mountaineering and Dangerous Rescue Management Measures (Trial)" (hereinafter referred to as the "Measures") implemented on October 14, 2025, provided detailed explanations to the hikers involved on the safety responsibilities of outdoor mountaineering, the legal consequences of violating regulations and risks, and the mechanism for recovering rescue costs. The Measures clearly stipulate that for outdoor mountaineering activities that involve risks and require the use of public resources for rescue, relevant departments reserve the right to recover rescue fees in accordance with the law, and encourage the rescued personnel to be exempted from fees by participating in social services, public welfare activities, and other means. Considering the mistaken attitude and willingness to take responsibility of the personnel involved, the Changping District Emergency Management Bureau has agreed to replace direct payment of rescue fees with public welfare compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Measures. In the end, the involved backpackers jointly invested in purchasing 280 life jackets and donated them to Heishanzhai Village and Xinzhuang Village in Yanshou Town, Changping District, for flood prevention and emergency support work such as river patrol and water inspection during the flood season. The combination of punishment and education has led to frequent public rescue incidents caused by hikers' illegal exploration. Recently, an outdoor rescue incident occurred in Hailuogou Scenic Area, Garze Prefecture, Sichuan Province. A man broke into the unopened Heihaizi area for hiking and was successfully rescued after going missing for more than 30 hours. Afterwards, the man was not only fined 3000 yuan by relevant law enforcement departments, but also had to bear 27200 yuan in rescue costs. In September 2025, 11 hikers broke into the unopened area of Mount Lu in Jiangxi without authorization. During the journey, one hiker unfortunately fell off a cliff and died. Except for two who escaped on their own, the rest were trapped. The local government immediately activated the emergency plan, mobilized multiple departments such as fire, public security, and medical, and formed a rescue team of more than 120 people. Rescue personnel fought tirelessly for a day and a night, and finally successfully transferred 8 trapped individuals safely. After investigation, the organizer of the wilderness activity was administratively detained for 10 days. In addition, the local government has lawfully and compliantly recovered a total of 74000 yuan in rescue costs from 10 backpackers. The interviewed experts pointed out that public resources should not bear the rescue costs incurred by individuals due to illegal exploration. At present, some places have introduced relevant regulations to recover public rescue costs incurred by citizens due to their own reasons. Zheng Baoku, a lawyer from Jilin Tongjia Law Firm, introduced that there are three major difficulties in recovering rescue fees in practice in many places: firstly, the legal basis is not detailed enough, and some areas lack clear local regulations to support it, resulting in the recovery work being "without legal basis"; Secondly, there is a lack of unified cost accounting standards, making it difficult to accurately quantify the costs of manpower, equipment, transportation, and other expenses involved in the rescue process; Thirdly, the difficulty of enforcement is high, with some individuals refusing to pay due to economic difficulties, resulting in higher costs for subsequent compulsory enforcement. In the opinion of the interviewed experts, the public welfare compensation model adopted by Changping District this time combines punishment with education and public welfare, and has important demonstration value. Zheng Baoku's analysis pointed out that the traditional mode of recovering rescue costs is mainly based on "economic punishment". Although it can play a certain punitive role, the educational effect is limited, and some personnel involved only passively pay fees without truly realizing the harm of their own behavior. The public welfare compensation model achieves an organic integration of "punishment+education+public welfare". According to Gao Guangtong, a partner at Beijing Hengdu Law Firm, this case is not an isolated incident, but an important measure taken by Beijing to promote the standardization of outdoor mountaineering safety management. In addition to Changping District, Mentougou District also issued the "Mentougou District Outdoor Mountaineering Risk Rescue and Recovery Management Measures (Trial)" in November 2025, clarifying the scope of recovery and reduction mechanism for rescue costs. The two districts have successively introduced new regulations, coupled with the implementation of the first public welfare compensation case, forming a governance synergy of "institutional guarantee+case demonstration", which can effectively warn potential violators and play a preventive role in advance. The cost accounting rules need to be refined. According to interviewed experts, currently, many provinces in China are facing the problem of recovering illegal exploration and rescue costs. Although some regions have introduced relevant regulations, there are still many obstacles in the implementation process. The public welfare compensation model in Beijing provides new ideas for overcoming these obstacles. Associate Professor Zhu Zhihao from South China University of Technology believes that the generalizability of the Beijing model is mainly reflected in three aspects: first, the compatibility of institutional design, where the public welfare compensation mechanism can be combined with existing rescue management regulations in various regions without the need for a complete restructuring of the institutional framework; The second is the flexibility of implementation. Each region can determine the specific ways of public welfare compensation based on local conditions, such as donating materials, participating in volunteer services, etc., to meet the needs of different regions; Thirdly, it has a high level of social acceptance, and public welfare compensation balances punishment and public welfare, making it easier to gain the understanding and support of those involved and the general public, with less resistance to implementation. However, the interviewed experts also mentioned that in order for the Beijing model to truly become a national model, a series of issues still need to be addressed, among which the most crucial is to refine the accounting standards for rescue costs and the rules for determining responsibilities. Zheng Baoku believes that the accounting of rescue costs involves multiple aspects, including the labor costs of rescue personnel, depreciation costs of rescue equipment, fuel costs of transportation vehicles, medical emergency expenses, etc. Detailed accounting standards need to be developed for how to quantify and obtain evidence of these costs. For example, what standards are used to calculate the labor costs of firefighting and rescue personnel? How is the depreciation of equipment such as drones and ropes used in the rescue process shared? If there is no unified standard, there may be significant differences in costs in different cases, which may raise public questions about fairness. "He further analyzed that there are also many issues that need to be refined in terms of responsibility determination. In practice, the situation of illegal exploration is often complex and may involve multiple people traveling together, minors participating, guides leading, and other situations. How to divide the responsibilities of different subjects? How to define the standards for 'violations'? These issues need to be further clarified, otherwise it will lead to vague responsibility determination and affect the development of recovery work. Zhu Zhihao suggested that a unified rescue cost accounting institution should be established, and professional personnel should accurately account for various costs incurred during the rescue process to ensure the objectivity and authority of cost data; At the same time, establish a supervision mechanism for public welfare compensation, track and supervise the flow of donated materials and the implementation of volunteer services, and prevent problems such as "false compensation". Zheng Baoku emphasized the need to strengthen the connection between relevant laws and regulations. Outdoor mountaineering rescue involves multiple departments such as emergency management, fire protection, public security, and cultural tourism. It is necessary to clarify the division of responsibilities among each department and form a working force. At the same time, it is necessary to promote the connection between local regulations and national laws and regulations, providing more solid legal support for the recovery of rescue costs and public welfare compensation. (New Society)