47 Former School Reuse Cases — Success Patterns and Failure Factors from Ministry of Education Data [2026 Edition]

Current State of Former School Utilization

8,850 schools have closed; of the 7,612 whose buildings still stand, 74.4% are in active use. Closures by fiscal year and the breakdown by use

From FY2004 through FY2023, a cumulative total of 8,850 schools have been closed[1]. By fiscal year, closures have not reached 450 in any year since FY2016, and numbered 298 in FY2023[3].

Of the 7,612 closed schools still standing, the utilization status is as follows:

The 19.7% (1,503[1] schools) with undetermined uses deserves attention — these facilities are generating maintenance costs with no path forward. Among the reasons why a use has not been decided, asked about school buildings with multiple answers (n=2,177), "no demand from the community" accounts for 903 cases (41.5%) and "building deterioration" for 902 cases (41.4%).

The same survey also asks whether residents' opinions were sought. Across 7,211 school buildings, with multiple answers allowed, 479 (6.6%) ran a questionnaire, 2,782 (38.6%) held briefings or hearings, 739 (10.2%) did something else, and 3,580 (49.6%) did nothing at all[4]. This figure is not limited to schools whose use is undecided — it covers all existing closed schools. Roughly half of all school buildings, including those already put to use, went without asking residents.

The same survey also tallies the main uses of the schools in active use. Note that this tally counts school buildings and gymnasiums separately and allows multiple answers per facility, so it is not a breakdown by number of schools.

The largest category is schools excluding universities, at 4,191 cases (40.5%)[2], followed by social sports facilities at 1,693 cases (16.4%), and business/startup support facilities and social education/cultural facilities at 11.7% each. Welfare and medical facilities account for 735 cases (7.1%).

For basic procedures on former school utilization, see Complete Guide to Former School Utilization. For information on using the Small Concession framework for former school reuse, see What Is Small Concession?.

Sector-by-Sector Case Analysis

Counts by use and the full list of the casebook's 47 cases, and the characteristics and preconditions of six sectors: companies, welfare, education, tourism, community and mixed use

MEXT's casebook on repurposing closed schools presents 47 cases from Hokkaido to Okinawa, and assigns uses to each case[5]. One case can carry several uses, so the total exceeds 47.

The 47 cases are listed below. The use column follows the casebook's table of contents, and the categories follow each case page.

Drawing on these 47 cases and information from MEXT's Minna no Haiko (Everyone's Closed School) Project, we examine the characteristics and preconditions of six sectors.

Company Facilities (Factories, R&D, Offices)

The most common use in the casebook is as a company or organization facility: factories, research and development bases, satellite offices and the like.

The former Hokuyo Elementary School in Koshimizu, Hokkaido was transferred for a fee to Yamaguchi Aburaya Fukutaro, which turned it into a rice cracker factory; the total renovation cost of about ¥450M was borne by the company, with no subsidy. The former Imazu-Nishi Elementary School in Takashima, Shiga was lent free of charge to Kyoei Seimitsu, which turned it into a mushroom cultivation factory; the total renovation cost of about ¥52M was borne by the company. The former Wada Elementary School in Suo-Oshima, Yamaguchi was lent free of charge to BUSICOM as a satellite office; of the total renovation cost of about ¥46.52M, the municipality bore about ¥19.31M, the company about ¥17.21M, and Yamaguchi Prefecture subsidies covered about ¥10M[6].

Preconditions:

• A location suited to the business (raw material supply, transport, telecommunications) and a company considering moving in
• Deciding at the tender or negotiation stage whether the building is transferred or lent, and who pays for renovation

Welfare Facilities (Elderly, Disabled, Children)

Former school classrooms and gymnasiums can be converted into facilities for persons with disabilities — including employment support services and after-school day services — and care facilities for older people. In the casebook, eight cases carry a welfare, childcare or medical use (cases 3, 7, 15, 20, 24, 34, 42 and 46).

When the former Nozomi Elementary School in Yubari, Hokkaido (completed 1986, closed 2011) became a home for the elderly, surveys found the structural frame, exterior walls and roof in usable condition, so only light renovation was needed. The final contract price for the part converted from the old school building (2,145.20 m² of floor area, excluding the extension) was ¥158.53 million, or ¥73,900 per m², and the article says this came to about one-third of the average cost of building new.[7] That is one case; it does not mean every closed school can be converted for a third of the cost of new construction.

Revenue stability: Welfare service fees for persons with disabilities are set by the national government under the Act for Comprehensive Support for Persons with Disabilities — a fixed-price structure that is relatively insulated from economic fluctuations and seasonal variation. Unlike tourism facilities, where "no visitors means losses," welfare facilities generate stable revenue as long as users continue to attend. This is a fundamentally different risk profile from all other sectors.

Preconditions:

• Demand for welfare services (sufficient user population) exists in the target area
• The building is in a condition suitable for use-change (school → welfare facility), including seismic compliance and accessibility
• A welfare operator with relevant operational experience is willing to participate

Education and Training Facilities

Using former school buildings as educational facilities — universities, specialist schools such as music schools, schools for adults, and so on. In the casebook, three cases carry a university use (cases 17, 18 and 27) and one a school use (case 4). The classrooms, blackboards and grounds can be used as they are.

Revenue structure: Free schools and vocational training programs vary between publicly subsidized and privately operated models. For corporate training facilities, proximity to urban centers is a critical precondition.

Change-of-use procedure: When a building's use is changed so that it becomes a special building for a use in column (i) of Appended Table 1, with more than 200 m² of floor area used for that purpose, the building confirmation provisions apply, except for changes between similar uses designated by Cabinet Order[8]. If the new use is not a special building, this confirmation is not required. Check with the building official which use a given plan falls under.

Tourism and Exchange Facilities

Conversion into experiential tourism facilities, lodging, restaurants, markets, etc. In the casebook, six cases carry an accommodation use and five a hands-on exchange facility use. The nostalgia factor of a former school can itself be an attraction, but this is also the most demanding sector in terms of preconditions.

Revenue structure challenge: Tourism revenue is directly tied to footfall and seasonal patterns. Without sufficient access for visitors from urban areas and integration into existing tourism flows, year-round financial viability is difficult.

Preconditions (demanding):

• Sufficient annual visitor potential to justify the financial model
• Countermeasures for seasonal variation (year-round operation is difficult in areas with low winter footfall)
• An operator capable of self-financing most of the renovation cost

Community Facilities

Conversion into community gathering spaces, co-working areas, childcare support centers, etc. In the casebook, four cases carry "community complex" as an other use (cases 20, 31, 38 and 47). Revenue potential is low, but the public value of maintaining community cohesion is high.

Revenue structure: Where revenue cannot cover running costs, plan on the municipality's contribution, such as designated management fees or grants. A purely commercial model is hard to sustain, but a partial contribution from the municipality can make it viable. The fact that the space was many residents' school creates high psychological acceptance. However, if the municipality's willingness to continue funding declines, sustainability becomes difficult.

Mixed Use

Placing multiple functions within a single former school. In the casebook, case 20 in Iizuna, Nagano carries six uses (start-up support facility, accommodation, public sports facility, after-school children's club, company or organization facility, and community complex).

Revenue structure advantage: Combining commercial activities (food and beverage, experiential programs) with public functions (welfare, education) helps balance the overall financial picture. Consortiums of multiple operators can distribute risk and enable cross-subsidization between profitable and loss-making components.

Precondition: Coordinating multiple tenants generates substantial transaction costs. Specialized expertise is required to design the allocation of space and revenue-sharing arrangements.

Why Operators Choose Welfare Facility Conversion

Revenue stability, fit with the building, and the municipality's maintenance and demolition costs, read from the casebook

Welfare and medical uses stand at 735 (7.1%), below the 774 recorded in the previous survey (as of 1 May 2021). Disability welfare facilities number 177, against 176 last time[2]. The number is not growing. Three factors explain why operators and municipalities still choose welfare conversion.

Reason 1: Revenue Stability

Disability welfare service fees are set by the national government under the Act for Comprehensive Support for Persons with Disabilities. While fees are revised on a triennial cycle, they are largely insulated from economic cycles and seasonal variation.

Compared to tourism facilities where "no visitors means losses," employment support services (Type B) and after-school day services generate predictable revenue as long as users attend. Even former schools in depopulating areas can sustain operations if local welfare demand is present.

Reason 2: Physical Compatibility with Existing Buildings

A Type A employment support office must have a training and work room, a consultation room, washrooms, toilets, a multipurpose room and other necessary facilities. The training and work room must be large enough not to hinder training or work and be equipped with the necessary machinery and tools. These provisions apply to Type B as well[9]. Because the standards set no figure for floor area, check classroom size, user numbers and the work involved with the designating authority.

In the casebook, Nishiwaga, Iwate renovated the ground floor of a two-storey school building into offices, living rooms and a dining room for a small-scale multi-function care home. The former Sawaishi Elementary School in Miharu, Fukushima became a welfare farming facility employing persons with disabilities in hydroponic leafy vegetable growing, with a total renovation cost of about ¥4M[10].

MHLW's social welfare facility subsidy covers 1/2 of development costs from the national government and 1/4 from the prefecture when a social welfare corporation or similar develops a facility (see below).

Reason 3: The Municipality's Maintenance and Demolition Costs

Nagaoka City lists, as a benefit, that having a corporation make use of the closed school reduced the costs of maintaining the facility and of demolition and removal[11]. Whether to keep and use a building should be weighed including maintenance and demolition costs.

However, starting a new welfare business can meet opposition. In Nishiwaga, the town already had relatively many welfare facilities for older people for its population, and high long-term care insurance premiums were an issue, so other providers objected that a new care business would push premiums up further. The operator won understanding by holding many briefings on projected numbers of older people and other topics[12]. Consensus-building with residents and contract design are the keys to a successful conversion.

Renovation Cost Realities and Subsidy Structures

From about ¥41.5M to about ¥1B. Floor area, building condition and the subsidy scheme differ across the three cases

Renovation costs for converting former schools into welfare and childcare facilities vary enormously depending on building scale, intended use, and condition. A comparison of 3 cases illustrates the range.

The year built, floor area, renovation cost, share borne and subsidy for all three cases[13] are as recorded in MEXT's casebook. Total costs range from about ¥41.5M to about ¥1B, but floor areas also range from about 490 m² to about 6,300 m². Divided by floor area, that is about ¥85,000 per m² in Nishiwaga, about ¥79,000 in Nagaoka and about ¥158,000 in Yokkaichi (our calculation; total renovation cost may include items other than building work).

① Building condition: At the former Shimada Elementary in Nagaoka, columns deformed by age had to be repaired, a foundation that had sunk in earthquakes had to be adjusted, and the building had to be brought up to the current Building Standards Act and Fire Service Act; the casebook says the works were very costly. The Nishiwaga school building already met seismic standards before its reuse.

② Use and scale: Yokkaichi brought together the functions of the area's kindergarten, nursery school and children's centre in a complex of about 6,315 m², the largest of the three both in floor area and in cost per m².

③ Subsidy scheme: Each case used a different scheme. The social welfare facility development subsidy covers protective facilities, residential facilities for children with disabilities, disability welfare service providers and similar; when a social welfare corporation or similar develops a facility, the national government in principle covers 1/2 of development costs and the prefecture (including designated cities and core cities) 1/4[14]. Nagaoka's disability employment support facility used this subsidy (named in the casebook as the Subsidy for the Development of Social Welfare Facilities). Nishiwaga's care home used long-term care subsidies, and Yokkaichi a sports promotion lottery grant. Once the use is decided, check which schemes that use can draw on first.

Three Patterns of Community Consensus-Building

When to use the resident organization, university coordinator, and deliberative body models

The Ministry of Education case collection reveals three distinct approaches to building community consensus.

Pattern 1: Resident Organization Model (Nishiwaga Town, Iwate)

After the town announced the closure, more than 10 rounds of discussion among representatives of the four administrative districts of the former school area decided to use the building for community welfare. Before the closure, in February 2011, community representatives set up an NPO, which began operating in June 2012. No one in the NPO had launched a care business before; it put effort into training, got through the start-up period, and cleared its cumulative deficit a little over eight years after opening[12].

In this model the residents themselves run the facility. That requires the organizational capacity to form an NPO and the financial resilience to wait for long-term stability.

Pattern 2: University Coordinator Model (Nagaoka City, Niigata)

Because school consolidation and the reuse that followed were an important issue for the whole area, Nagaoka asked a university in the city to coordinate. It held 12 meetings in each of four study groups of residents and education stakeholders, and also gathered views through a questionnaire to residents and its website, carrying the study from school consolidation through to reuse. The operator was chosen through a simplified proposal competition[11].

This approach suits cases where stakeholder interests are complex or resident opinion is likely to divide.

Pattern 3: Deliberative Body with Observer Model (Yokkaichi City, Mie)

City staff joined, as observers, the deliberative body residents set up to consider how to use the closed school, and took what they heard into account in developing the use policy. The city answered residents' questions and held repeated discussions before deciding its use policy[15].

Residents have their own forum for discussion, while the decision stays with the city. Facilitation that supports the deliberative body becomes the critical factor.

Precondition Assessment

Five preconditions that determine the success or failure of former school reuse

Five preconditions that determine the success or failure of former school reuse:

A critical perspective: Of the 7,211 school buildings at existing closed schools, 3,580 (49.6%) report that residents' opinions were never sought. Reading case studies to build a sense of "what's possible" is a useful first step, but what consistently prevents failure is the disciplined work of listening to what local residents actually want and what genuine demand exists — before settling on a direction.

---

The data from 47 cases offers valuable hints about "what can be done," but "whether that will work for our specific former school" is a separate question. The necessary first step is to accurately assess the building's condition and the community's needs, then design a process for finding operators who match those realities.

ISVD offers a free consultation desk, from the planning stage through to launch.

Abandoned School × Welfare Facility Revenue Model

Using Type B continuous employment support as the example: base fee tiers from June 2026, the rule on user wages, how to work out facility cost differences, and three cases.

Closed School Renovation Costs: Breakdown by Cost Item and Case Examples

How to think about renovation costs by structure, interiors, building services, fire safety equipment and accessibility, with amounts from MEXT's case collection.

How to Reuse a Closed School: Survey Counts, MEXT's List of Closed Schools Seeking Uses, the Property Disposal Procedure, and National Subsidies

Survey counts and why uses stay undecided, MEXT's list of closed schools seeking uses, when property disposal needs only a report or no treasury repayment, and the national subsidy list

What to do next

When reviewing school reuse cases, examine costs and building conditions.

When using renovation costs from another municipality, check building condition and the scope of work. Develop the target facility's budget from its own surveys and estimates.

---

References

FY2024 Survey on the Utilization of Closed School Facilities (as of 1 May 2024) — Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2025)

Casebook on Repurposing Closed Schools (Minna no Haiko Project) — Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2023)

Minna no Haiko (Everyone's Closed School) Project — Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2025)

Realizing the Reuse of a School Loved by Its Community through Cooperation with the City — Construction Research Institute (Kensetsu Bukka, October 2018) (2018)

Development and Operation of Social Welfare Facilities — Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (2026)

Standards for Personnel, Facilities and Operation of Designated Disability Welfare Services (MHLW Ordinance No. 171 of 2006) — e-Gov Legal Database (e-Gov)

Building Standards Act (Act No. 201 of 1950) — e-Gov Legal Database (e-Gov)

On the Draft Small Concession Promotion Policy (Material 4) — MLIT Policy Bureau, Social Infrastructure Development Policy Division (2024)

---

Explore Further

Case

Kamiyama and Green Valley: Population and Migration, the Buildings Used for Satellite Offices, and the College That Turned the Former Kamiyama Junior High School into a Dormitory

The town's in- and out-migration, Green Valley's timeline, satellite offices in vacant houses and storehouses, and the college dormitory in the former Kamiyama Junior High School

Case

Munakata City's Former Oshima Gakuen

Reusing a closed school on a World Heritage island

By Use

Closed Schools × Community Exchange Hubs

Operating models for composite community facilities

Statistics

Latest Trends in Abandoned School Revitalization

Latest closure counts and utilization rate data

Regional

Abandoned School Reuse in Tohoku

Challenges and success stories from aging regions