Overview of 5 Cases
Comparative fact sheets for 5 cases across Koriyama, Mutsu, Ninohe, Beppu, and Maebashi
Population of Ninohe City — smallest municipality with a Park-PFI success case
22,999
Area of Harukigawa Park (Beppu City) — viable via vertical multilevel design
0.92ha
Usage fees to the city from Harukigawa Park's 0.92ha site
¥14M/yr
The operator's projection, assessed by the selection committee in December 2021
From large urban parks to 0.25ha neighborhood parks across 5 typologies
5 cases
Five successful cases of Park-PFI (Public Solicitation Management System) have been selected, ranging from large to small parks. These cases demonstrate that the common belief — "Park-PFI only works for large parks" — is mistaken.
For an overview of the Park-PFI framework, see What Is Park-PFI (Public Solicitation Management System)?.
| Case | Municipality (Population) | Park Area | Operator | Business Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaiseizan Park | Koriyama City (313,125) | 12.89ha | Daiwa Lease Group | Café, bakery, multipurpose |
| PARK DAIKANYAMA | Mutsu City (49,699) | — | Mutsu Real Estate Trading Center | Glamping, dining, dog run |
| Kadaru Terrace Kindaichi | Ninohe City (22,999) | 2ha (neighborhood park) | Kadaru Mirai (SPC) | Hot spring, sauna, accommodation, restaurant |
| Harukigawa Park | Beppu City (112,267) | 0.92ha | Minerva (SPC) | Supermarket, artificial turf field, café |
| Kokorun City Park | Maebashi City (324,554) | 0.19ha | Sanwakai, a certified nonprofit corporation | Cafe with community space |
Case 1: Kaiseizan Park (Koriyama City, Fukushima Prefecture)
Park-PFI in a core city of about 313,000. Detailed analysis of the 3-phase sounding incentive design, 500-point evaluation criteria, and the 5-company major firm/local JV structure
Unit costs and amounts in financial examples without a cited source are illustrative assumptions, not statistically established market rates. Use estimates and comparable records appropriate to the target facility, location and business when preparing a project plan. Distinguish these assumptions from cited statistics and case expenditure.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Approach | Park-PFI + Designated Manager System |
| Project Area | Approx. 12.89ha (total park area approx. 30.3ha) |
| Project Period | 2024–2043 (19 years) |
| Development Cost | Approx. ¥700 million (municipality max 90% / private min 10%) |
| Designated Management Fee | ¥1.44 billion over 19 years (approx. ¥75.87 million/year) |
| Operator | Daiwa Lease Group (5-company JV) |
| Number of Bidders | 2 (2 joint business entities) |
| Annual Park Visitors | Approx. 1.4 million |
Three-Phase Sounding and Incentive Design
The three-phase sounding adopted at Kaiseizan Park represents one of the most carefully structured public-private dialogue designs in Japan's Park-PFI record.
Phase 1: Trial Sounding (October 2020)
Private operators were given the opportunity to actually conduct business and hold events within the park in a social experiment format. Participants — companies and NPOs — were exempted from park usage fees for one month (9:00–21:00) and received a +5 point bonus in the subsequent public tender evaluation.
The trial bonus was 5 points out of 500, or 1%. Participating operators could observe actual use of the park and use that information in their proposals.
Phase 2: Pre-Sounding (September 2021)
The purpose was to capture private-sector needs and intentions at the feasibility study stage. Opinions were gathered broadly through email inquiry. Concerns raised by the private sector and analysis of proposal feasibility at this stage fed directly into the design of the Phase 3 public solicitation guidelines.
Phase 3: Market Sounding (January 2022)
Conducted immediately before the public solicitation guidelines were finalized. Feedback was obtained on the project scheme, enabling final adjustments to make conditions more amenable to private-sector participation. Participants received a +3 point bonus in the public tender evaluation.
The approximately four-year preparation period from planning (March 2020) to opening (April 2024) was substantial, but without this careful three-phase public-private dialogue, the competitive public tender with 2 joint business entities would likely not have been achievable.
Evaluation Criteria Structure (500-Point Rubric)
The public tender evaluation uses a 500-point rubric plus 8 incentive bonus points. The structure of this scoring system itself communicates what Koriyama City prioritizes.
| Major Category | Points | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Overall Project Plan | 120 | Implementation policy, citizen services, area management, stability/risk |
| Designated Park Facility Development | 100 | Overall facility vision + 8 facility zones × 10 points each |
| Revenue Park Facilities | 80 | Vitality creation, effectiveness/linkages, risk response |
| Management Operations (Designated Manager) | 100 | Equal access, maximizing utility, staffing/capacity, maintenance, employment |
| Cost Reduction | 70 | Quantified reduction, cost appropriateness, revenue contribution |
| Added Value Proposals | 30 | Unique added value proposals |
| Total | 500 | |
| Incentive Bonus | +8 | Trial sounding participation +5, market sounding participation +3 |
Minimum threshold: All evaluators' combined score must reach 60% or more of the total possible score, AND each of "Overall Project Plan," "Facility Development," and "Management Operations" must individually reach 60% or more.
The noteworthy element is the 40 points allocated to "revenue contribution." Park-PFI is not simply a system for attracting commercial facilities — the return of private-sector revenues to park maintenance and improvement is the institutional foundation. This allocation explicitly embeds that principle into the evaluation criteria.
Consortium Structure: Designing the "Major Firm × Local" Combination
The selected Daiwa Lease Group consortium (operating name: Kaiseizan Frontier Partners) consists of 5 companies.
| Company | Base | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Daiwa Lease (representative) | Daiwa House Group | PPP/PFI planning, management, facility development |
| a.ru.ku Publishing | Koriyama City | Local content, communications, tenant attraction |
| Tokyo Bisou Kogyo | Tokyo | Maintenance, cleaning, management operations |
| Hakko Construction | Koriyama City | Civil engineering and construction |
| Sakura Engineering | Koriyama City | Civil design, surveying, investigation |
Daiwa Lease serves as the representative, bringing national operational expertise, while 3 Koriyama-based local companies form the JV's core. The inclusion of local companies is not merely a gesture toward community contribution — it is a functional decision that secures local content planning capability (a.ru.ku Publishing) and on-the-ground construction capacity (Hakko Construction, Sakura Engineering).
The "employment considerations (10 points)" in the evaluation criteria also signals that local job creation is an explicit dimension of the assessment.
Revenue Facility Business Mix
The facilities opened following selection include a café, garden goods shop, bakery, ramen restaurant, and other shops totaling 5 establishments, plus a multipurpose space. With an annual footfall of approximately 1.4 million visitors, food and beverage anchors a vitality-focused facility cluster.
Case 2: PARK DAIKANYAMA (Mutsu City, Aomori Prefecture)
Population 49,699. Local firm revitalized an underused park by branding 'northernmost glamping on Honshu'
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Population | 49,699 (2025 census preliminary count) |
| Operator | Mutsu Real Estate Trading Center (local company) |
| Business Type | Glamping (trailer house accommodation), dining, dog run |
| Project Period | 20 years |
Structural Success Factors
Branding "the northernmost" as a unique asset: Mutsu City's position at the tip of the Shimokita Peninsula was reframed from a weakness into a strength. Using movable trailer houses kept initial investment low, while the "northernmost glamping on Honshu" positioning enabled premium pricing through scarcity — a textbook case of turning geographic peripherality into a brand advantage.
Local company leadership: Rather than a major general contractor or PPP specialist firm, a local real estate company took the lead as representative operator. A proposal grounded in local context successfully transformed an underused park into a combined tourism and community space. Having a locally rooted company as the long-term operator also enhances stability over the 20-year project period.
What this case shows: A regional city of about 50,000 used its distinctive location while limiting capital expenditure. Another park needs its own assessment of suitable business types, demand and development costs.
Case 3: Kadaru Terrace Kindaichi (Ninohe City, Iwate Prefecture)
Population 23,000. Locally funded townscape company wins Japan Society of Civil Engineers Award with hot spring × Park-PFI
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Population | 22,999 (2025 census preliminary count) |
| Park Classification | Neighborhood park (2ha) |
| Operator | Kadaru Mirai (locally funded, quasi-public townscape company) + SPC |
| Business Type | Hot spring, sauna, accommodation, restaurant, indoor pool |
| Opening | March 2022 |
| Award | Japan Society of Civil Engineers Design Award 2023, Excellence Prize |
Structural Success Factors
Integrating facility replacement with Park-PFI: The project's starting point was the integrated design of two needs: the "administrative challenge" of replacing an aging municipal hot spring facility, and the "institutional opportunity" of introducing private-sector energy through Park-PFI. By redesigning the hot spring facility as a composite complex combining accommodation, restaurant, and sauna, financial viability was secured even in a market of 23,000 residents.
Monetizing local resources: The hot spring — a location-specific resource — serves as the primary revenue driver, which is the structural reason why the project worked on the small footprint of a 2ha neighborhood park. When "non-transplantable local resources" such as hot springs are located adjacent to or within a park, Park-PFI becomes an exceptionally powerful vehicle.
The significance of the local investment model: With Kadaru Mirai, a locally funded townscape company, at the core of the SPC, revenues circulate within the community. When external capital enters, revenues tend to flow out of the region; with a local investment model, both employment and revenue remain in the community. This "local circulation" design has high replicability for small municipalities.
What this case demonstrates: Park-PFI is viable even in municipalities of around 20,000. The prerequisite, however, is a strong locally distinctive resource — a hot spring, scenic landmark, or similar asset — that can serve as the revenue core. Unlike Kaiseizan Park's model of 1.4 million annual visitors, this approach works by raising per-visitor spending rather than maximizing footfall.
Case 4: Harukigawa Park (Beppu City, Oita Prefecture)
0.92ha narrow site resolved through vertical design — first multilevel urban park in western Japan, with usage fees to the city projected at ¥14M a year
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Area | Approx. 0.92ha (under 1ha) |
| Operator | Minerva Inc., a special purpose company formed by four companies led by local firms |
| Business Type | 1F: Supermarket; 2F: Artificial turf field + café |
| Usage fees and related payments to the city (operator's projection) | Approx. ¥14 million a year |
Structural Success Factors
Overcoming constraints through vertical design: The challenge of a 0.92ha narrow site was that flat utilization would force park functions and commercial facilities to compete for space. The solution was to stack uses vertically — daily living infrastructure (supermarket) on the ground floor, park functions (sports, leisure) on the upper floor. Becoming the first multilevel urban park in western Japan also generated media attention that benefited tenant attraction and public awareness.
Agility of the local SPC: Four companies including the lead firm formed an SPC, putting two different reasons to visit — a sports facility and everyday grocery shopping — on one site. This self-contained local structure, without relying on major firms, underpinned a price proposal projecting about ¥14 million a year in usage fees to the city from a sub-hectare site.
What this case demonstrates: With an area of 0.25ha or more — meeting the national subsidy eligibility threshold — Park-PFI applies even to urban parks under 1ha. Small site area is not a disqualifying factor; vertical design is the solution.
Case 5: Kokorun City Park (Maebashi City, Gunma)
A 0.19ha neighborhood park designed as part of a larger CCRC development, with a nonprofit-run cafe
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Project Name | Neighborhood park in the Japanese Red Cross site "Community for a Lifetime" (CCRC) development |
| Park Area | approx. 0.19ha |
| Project Cost | ¥41 million (solicited park facilities and designated park facilities) |
| Term | September 2021 to August 2041 (20 years) |
| Operator | Sanwakai, a certified nonprofit corporation |
| Solicited facility | A cafe with community space inside |
| Designated facility | Public restrooms |
| Opened | July 2022 |
Structural Success Factors
The city turned to local operators only after national chains declined. Maebashi first ran sounding with national chain stores introduced by the CCRC lead developer, but they responded that participation was difficult given the project scale. The city switched to searching among local businesses, promoted the project through the chamber of commerce and to local firms already interested in the CCRC development, and ran closed sounding. The winner was a nonprofit.
Collaboration was written into the solicitation conditions. The city set three conditions: initiatives and an activity base consistent with the CCRC concept; collaboration and synergy with the local development group Kokorun Circle Maebashi; and reduction of the construction and management costs borne by the city. Operators were expected to run community activities, not merely install and manage facilities. After selection, the Park-PFI operator joined that development group.
What this case demonstrates: Park-PFI works at 0.19ha. But the park was not made to pay for itself in isolation. It was designed as one part of a larger CCRC development and paired with a group already active on the site, and that is what made a single cafe viable. The condition is not the size of the park but what is already moving around it.
Six Typologies of Small-Scale Success
Regional resource, problem-solving, glamping, vertical, package, and townscape company models with applicable conditions
Analysis of the 5 cases reveals six typologies of successful Park-PFI in smaller parks.
| Typology | Representative Case | Core Logic | Applicable Condition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regional Resource | Kadaru Terrace Kindaichi | Secure a primary revenue source through non-transplantable local resources such as hot springs | A distinctive local resource exists adjacent to or within the park |
| Problem-Solving | Yanagimachi Children's Park (Mutsu City) | Use social infrastructure (childcare) rather than food and beverage as the revenue facility | Social challenges such as childcare waitlists or welfare needs exist |
| Glamping | PARK DAIKANYAMA | Low investment, strong branding, premium pricing even in regional areas | A scarce location or natural resource asset exists |
| Vertical | Harukigawa Park | Resolve narrow-site constraints through multi-level design | Site is 0.25ha+ but insufficient for flat development |
| Anchored to a larger project | Kokorun City Park | Design the park as part of a larger development already underway nearby | A CCRC or redevelopment project is moving around the park |
| Townscape Company | Kadaru Terrace Kindaichi | Local investment SPC ensures money circulates within the community | A key local operator or organization is willing to anchor the effort |
Precondition Comparison and Structural Analysis
Comparative framework and extraction of two shared structural success factors
Two structural success factors are common across all 5 cases.
1. Phased sounding
The three-phase approach at Kaiseizan Park is the most systematic example, but in all other cases as well, some form of private-sector dialogue took place before the public tender. There are no successful cases in which "going straight to public tender" worked. What is especially important is designing some form of incentive for sounding participation — whether bonus points or preferred conditions — to attract serious operators early.
For detailed guidance on sounding design, see Sounding Design Template.
2. Embedding local businesses in the consortium
In 4 of the 5 cases, local companies serve as the JV representative or core entity. Embedding local businesses produces three effects:
- Planning quality: Local companies with deep community knowledge generate proposals better matched to local needs
- Local economic circulation: Revenue, employment, and construction work are more likely to remain within the community
- Long-term operational stability: Organizations rooted in the region are better positioned to sustain 20-year operations
For these success factors to function, however, the preconditions described above — footfall, local resources, preparation time, and private-sector interest — must be in place. Copying only the "approach" of a case without matching preconditions will not produce the same result.
How to Write Park-PFI Solicitation Guidelines
The 10 statutory items and how to use the MLIT template — the document that activates these success factors
Park-PFI Market Sounding Practical Guide
How to design 3-phase sounding that attracts serious private-sector operators early
There is much to learn from these cases, but whether the same can be achieved at your park is a separate question. The necessary first step is to accurately assess the preconditions for your park: Is annual footfall sufficient? What local resources exist? Will private operators step forward?
ISVD provides free support for the early stages of Park-PFI implementation, from sounding design to project scheme development.
What to do next
When using a case to inform a project, check how its conditions differ from the target park.
| # | What to check or consider | Responsible team or contact |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Compare the case with the target park's area, location and users. Do not assess viability from population size alone | Published records and target park surveys |
| 2 | Obtain the case municipality's solicitation guidelines and selection results. Ask the responsible team for records not published online | Parks team in the case municipality |
| 3 | Compare the minimum fee in the guidelines with the fee in the selected proposal | Solicitation guidelines and selection results |
| 4 | Check existing building footprints and building coverage limits in the target park's local ordinance | Parks team |
| 5 | Present the target park's conditions and the case evidence, and ask operators about their interest and requirements | Market sounding |
To apply a case to the target park, examine the solicitation terms and selected proposal. Identify which conditions are relevant, accounting for differences in area, location and users.
References
Public Solicitation Management System (Park-PFI) — Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Urban Bureau, Parks and Greenery Division (2024)
FY2024 seminar on Park-PFI cases for solving local issues: cases in small parks, programme document — Japan Park and Greenery Association (2024)
Kaiseizan Park Park-PFI Project — Koriyama City (2022)
Kaiseizan Park Public Solicitation Guidelines (April 2022) — Koriyama City (2022)
Daiwa Lease: Kaiseizan Park Case Study — Daiwa Lease Co., Ltd. (2024)
Explore Further
Kadaru Terrace Kindaichi
Why a municipality of 23,000 succeeded with Park-PFI
Kaiseizan Park Park-PFI
The design philosophy behind a 500-point scoring rubric
Yokohama City's Park-PFI
The frontline of large-city park activation
Comparing Park Revenue Facility Business Types
Café, BBQ, glamping, and welfare comparison
Welfare Facilities under Park-PFI
Organizing issues around inclusive park complex models
Park-PFI in Okinawa
A model fusing parks with tourism resources
