Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

Instead of paying a compulsory financial penalty for rescue costs, rescued hikers involved in a recent case in rural Beijing offered to donate 280 life jackets - worth a total of 30,000 yuan ($4,300) - to nearby villages for flood control efforts and river patrols. The move marks a new model of refined social governance that deserves nationwide adoption. 

Seven adults and six minors recently went missing while hiking in an unopened mountainous area of Beijing's Changping district. Multiple departments in Changping quickly coordinated and mobilized professional rescue teams, while a level-4 emergency response was activated citywide. After nine hours of intensive search and rescue operations, all 13 stranded individuals were brought to safety. 

What followed, however, marked a notable departure from past practice. Instead of paying a compulsory financial penalty for the recovery of rescue costs, the rescued individuals proposed to take responsibility through a public-good compensation arrangement, donating 280 life jackets to nearby mountain villages for flood control efforts and river patrols. 

Wang Peng, an associate research fellow at the Beijing Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Thursday that the public-good compensation model represents a form of soft enforcement that innovates social governance. 

This marked the first time Beijing has recovered rescue costs through a public-good compensation model - an innovation that merits national attention.

By transforming legal accountability into the creation of social value, it builds a mechanism of "transforming responsibility through public-good compensation." In doing so, it upholds the authority of regulations while awakening a sense of personal responsibility, Wang said. 

The model upgrades the use of public resources from one-way consumption to a more sustainable cycle, ensuring that the compensatory actions of those who make mistakes directly feed back into community safety and form a closed loop of "misstep-accountability-social return," he noted. 

In recent years, rescues involving hikers who ventured into risky or unopened mountainous areas have occurred with increasing frequency, repeatedly sparking public debate over whether those rescued should be charged for the costs of emergency operations.

According to a regulation about risk-involved outdoor hiking rescues issued by Beijing's Changping district in October, when risky outdoor hiking activities lead to the deployment of public resources for rescue operations, the government reserves the right to recover the associated costs. At the same time, it establishes an incentive-compatible mechanism that allows those rescued to be exempted from paying rescue fees by participating in public-good activities such as community service, public-welfare, or safety awareness campaigns. Similar regulations were later introduced in the capital's Mentougou district.

Xu Xin, an official with the Changping Emergency Management Bureau, told the China Youth Daily that the primary purpose of recovering rescue costs is to provide a warning and serve an educational function, rather than to impose financial punishment. 

The regulation is designed to balance accountability with education. When rescue costs are relatively low, they may be offset through volunteer activities such as waste sorting or safety awareness campaigns. In cases involving large-scale rescue operations, however, compensation should take the form of public-good actions of commensurate value, so as to achieve a meaningful educational effect, Xu said. 

More importantly, Wang noted that this model triggers a psychological shift among those involved - from passive recipients of punishment to active participants in community building. 

It sends a clear message that freedom is bounded by responsibility. By offering a replicable solution for similar cases, it also helps steer social governance away from a narrow focus on blame and penalties toward a model of repair and coexistence, ultimately achieving an organic balance between legal rigor, moral flexibility, and resilient use of public resources, Wang said. 

This balance between principle and compassion reflects a more refined and humane form of social governance. It also offers a fresh and instructive pathway for addressing rescue cost recovery nationwide.

The deterrent effect of such a mechanism should not be underestimated. In past cases of illegal or high-risk trail crossings - such as those along the Aotai Trail in Northwest China's Shaanxi Province - some adventurers pressed forward precisely because they assumed that "free public rescue" would serve as a last safety net. This mentality not only endangers their own lives and devastates their families but also exposes rescue personnel to unnecessary danger. A clearly defined compensation mechanism raises the cost of reckless behavior, puncturing the illusion that risky adventures come without consequences. It sends a clear signal to would-be imitators that irresponsible choices carry tangible social obligations.

Public-good compensation does not undermine the principle that rescue comes first and life is paramount. Rather, it complements it by ensuring that responsibility follows rescue. If standardized, transparent, and fairly applied, this model can strike a sustainable balance between safeguarding lives and protecting public resources. 

Changping's experiment shows that accountability need not rely solely on fines and penalties; when designed thoughtfully, it can also cultivate responsibility, reinforce public safety awareness, and turn costly mistakes into contributions to the common good.

The author is a reporter with the Global Times. life@gloaltimes.com.cn