Statistics as of 2026
The 203-park count: adoption by prefecture and adoption by fiscal year
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.
Nationwide Park-PFI adoptions as of March 2026 — spanning eight years of steady expansion since the 2017 Urban Park Act amendment
203 parks
Parks where Park-PFI adoption was under consideration as of March 2026
187 parks
Parks where the solicited facility is in service, including partial service
131 parks
Adoptions in FY2021, the highest of any single fiscal year
34 parks
Nationwide Adoption: 203 Parks
Park-PFI (the Public Solicitation Management System) has been implemented in 203 parks nationwide as of March 2026. Approximately eight years have passed since the Urban Park Act was amended in 2017 to establish Park-PFI. The list covers parks for which a public solicitation guideline has been published, sorted by the fiscal year of that publication.
Figures in the list (as of 31 March 2026):
- Parks adopted: 203
- Parks where adoption is under consideration: 187
- Parks where the solicited facility is in service: 131 (including partial service)
Projects that failed to attract a bidder, and projects an operator withdrew from, are not included in this list. The figures show projects that started and are continuing.
Adoption by Prefecture
The largest counts are Tokyo with 18 parks, Fukuoka with 17, Kanagawa with 14, Aichi with 13, and Osaka with 13. Park managers in the list include prefectures, cities, Tokyo wards, towns, a partial-affairs association, and MLIT itself. No published tally breaks the count down by municipal population size.
Adoption by Fiscal Year
The MLIT list groups parks by the fiscal year of adoption: 4 in FY2017, 17 in FY2018, 22 in FY2019, 23 in FY2020, 34 in FY2021, 30 in FY2022, 29 in FY2023, 21 in FY2024, and 23 in FY2025, for a total of 203.The annual figure peaked at 34 in FY2021 and has stayed in the twenties since. The record supports neither a claim of continued growth nor one of continued decline.
No nationwide tally by business type has been published. The MLIT list carries only the prefecture, the park manager, and the park name; it does not record what the revenue facility is. No document counts what share are cafés or how many are glamping sites nationwide. For an individual project, the business type is stated in that municipality's solicitation guideline and selection results.
→ For how the economics differ by business type, see What Revenue Facilities Work Best in Parks? A Business Model Comparison.
Position Within the Broader PPP/PFI Market (2026)
Park-PFI is a method specialized for urban parks. The published figures below place it within PPP/PFI as a whole.
Cumulative PFI projects with an announced implementation policy, FY1999 to FY2023
1,071 projects
PFI projects with an implementation policy announced in FY2023
69 projects
Projects brought forward in the priority sectors, cumulative through the end of FY2024
209 projects
The Action Plan ten-year project count target (FY2022–FY2031, all priority sectors); the 209 figure is 32% of it
650 projects
PPP/PFI Action Plan targets: The 2026 revision aims for 40 trillion yen in project volume over the ten years from FY2022 to FY2031. For parks, the ten-year target is 35 projects opening a whole park to private involvement through a public facility operation project or Park-PFI. Those 35 projects are ones that open a whole park to private involvement. The 203 figure, by contrast, counts parks for which a solicitation guideline has been published, including projects that cover only part of a park. The two numbers do not count the same thing.
As cross-sector and wide-area PPP/PFI projects increase, Park-PFI is also showing signs of evolving beyond standalone park development into composite projects such as bundled management of multiple parks or combinations of park + welfare facility + local energy.
Recent Noteworthy Cases
Overview and features of three cases that opened or were selected between 2024 and 2026
Case 1: Stacked Urban Park Structure (Beppu City, Harukigawa Park)
The case that drew attention as a pioneering example of achieving Park-PFI on an extremely small site of only 0.92 hectares is Harukigawa Park in Beppu City, Oita Prefecture. Neither the Urban Park Act nor the guidelines set a minimum park area for Park-PFI. The place an area line is drawn is the subsidy: the public-private hub creation project under the Social Capital Development Grant requires an urban park of at least 0.25 hectares (Guidelines 4.2). At 0.92 hectares, Harukigawa Park clears that line. It used the stacked urban park system under the Urban Park Act, layering functions vertically across three levels.
- Level 1: Supermarket and tenant retail (private revenue facilities)
- Level 2: Artificial turf field and rooftop garden (designated park facilities)
- Level 3: Café and observation deck (revenue facilities)
What this case demonstrated is that the constraint of "limited park area" can be overcome through vertical utilization. A plan projecting about ¥14 million a year in usage fees to the city is a high figure for a 0.92-hectare park, though no record of the amount actually received has been published.
Case 2: Hot Springs × Park-PFI Integration (Ninohe City, Kadaru Terrace Kanaita)
The case in Ninohe City, Iwate Prefecture (population approx. 23,000) stands as a representative demonstration that Park-PFI can succeed even in small municipalities with populations of around 20,000. A locally capitalized town development company, "Kadaru Mirai," established a special purpose company and developed hot springs, sauna facilities, accommodation, a restaurant, and an indoor pool within a neighborhood park (2 hectares).
The project received the Japan Society of Civil Engineers Design Award 2023 Excellence Prize and attracted national attention as a model for revitalizing parks in small regional cities. The project's design — one that leverages local hot spring resources to create an experience only possible in that specific location — has been widely recognized.
Case 3: Glamping
One Park-PFI project featuring glamping (overnight accommodation) is PARK DAIKANYAMA in Mutsu City, Aomori Prefecture, marketed under the positioning of "Japan's northernmost glamping." No document counts how many such projects exist nationwide.
Common features of glamping cases:
- Natural environment and location scarcity are placed at the conceptual core
- Relocatable trailer homes and glamping tents are used to reduce exit risk
- Meals and experiential programs are added to raise the average spend (¥15,000–¥40,000 per person per night)
What the Guidelines Say
Four provisions of the May 2025 edition, and the relationship with Small Concession
Four Working Points from the May 2025 Edition
Four points that municipalities use in practice, drawn from the MLIT guidelines revised on 30 May 2025. MLIT has published no itemized list of what changed from the previous edition, so what follows is what the current edition says. The numbers in parentheses are guideline section numbers.
-
The stages of market sounding: The guidelines state that sounding "has two stages: the project conception stage and the project review stage" (3.2). At either stage it is advisable to provide the park outline and drawings, the park concept, the building area already occupied by existing park facilities, and current maintenance costs and designated management fees.
-
Bonus points for sounding participants: A park manager may set up an arrangement under which "private operators that submitted strong proposals receive bonus points at solicitation" (3.2).
-
Half the study cost is national funding: The public-private park planning study covers data collection and analysis, market sounding, drafting the implementation policy, and preparing solicitation documents; the national share is one half of the cost of the study (4.4). It was created in the FY2023 budget.
-
Detailed quantitative evaluation is best outsourced: Because the viability of the revenue facility and the appropriate fee level both need assessment, the guidelines advise commissioning a specialist external consultant to carry the review forward (4.1).
Some words do not appear in the guidelines. "GX," "ZEB," "renewable energy," "decarbonization," "Small Concession," and "abandoned school" appear zero times in the body of the 30 May 2025 edition. Nor does it draw any size line at a population of 50,000 or an area of 3 hectares.
Relationship with Small Concession
The Action Plan gives "promotion of Small Concession" its own item, listing use of the Small Concession Platform, dispatch of experts, and preparation of a practical handbook. What it names as the target there is underused public real estate and idle public facilities, not urban parks.
The Park-PFI guidelines make no mention of Small Concession. No provision connecting the two systems appears in either document. A project that uses an adjacent abandoned school alongside a park therefore has to run the two systems separately.
→ For the Small Concession system, see Small Concession Latest Trends [2026 Edition].
Outlook
What adoption by fiscal year says about the figures ahead, and what municipalities should prepare now
How to Read the Figures Ahead
By fiscal year, the peak was 34 parks in FY2021, followed by 29 in FY2023, 21 in FY2024, and 23 in FY2025. If the level of the last three years held for another three, the total would reach roughly 270. That is a calculation on an assumption this article made, not a projection published by MLIT.
187 parks are listed as under consideration. Not all 187 will necessarily reach solicitation, and the list excludes projects that failed to attract a bidder or that an operator withdrew from.
What follows is this article's own reading. Whether the figures rise or level off will depend on how much of the development cost private revenue can cover, whether a comparable park has already made a project work, and whether national support continues. On that last point, the public-private park planning study (half the study cost as national funding) was created in the FY2023 budget and appears at 4.4 of the guidelines.
Three Things Municipalities Should Prepare Now
For municipalities that aim to implement Park-PFI within three to five years, the following three starting points are recommended.
Preparation 1: Narrow down candidate parks
Park-PFI is not viable for every park. Organize annual visitor counts, surrounding private-sector demand, scope for building coverage ratio relaxation, and the age and condition of existing facilities, and identify two to three high-potential candidate parks.
The 10 points of added coverage are shared with rest facilities, not granted separately to each. A park that already reaches 12% coverage through rest or sports facilities cannot add a Park-PFI amenity building (Guidelines, §2.3).
Preparation 2: Begin internal consensus building
Park-PFI cannot be advanced by the parks division alone. It is essential to form a cross-departmental team involving finance, legal affairs, urban planning, and assembly liaison divisions. Early reporting to the mayor and deputy mayor is also important.
Preparation 3: Site visits to nearby success cases
Visit cases in municipalities with similar conditions to examine operational challenges and the staffing and responsibilities needed. MLIT's case collection can help identify relevant examples.
The Complete Guide to Park-PFI
The basic mechanism, three special exemptions, and the full implementation flow — the essential foundation before applying 2026 statistics to your own context
Park-PFI Strategy for Small Municipalities
Six success patterns for municipalities under 50,000 — directly applicable to the 20%+ of adoptions outside major cities
What to do next
When considering Park-PFI, examine the park's conditions, use and operator interest.
| # | What to check or consider | Responsible team or contact |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Check the park's site area and the footprint of existing buildings, including rest and sports facilities, to establish current building coverage | Parks team |
| 2 | Check the building coverage limits and exceptions in the local ordinance. Compare them with existing building footprints to assess whether new facilities can be added | Parks team |
| 3 | Study visitor numbers and patterns of use, including weekday, weekend and seasonal differences, to assess likely demand | Site surveys and existing survey records |
| 4 | Check actual fees at comparable parks, taking account of differences in area, location and facility use | Other municipalities and published records |
| 5 | Present the survey results and proposed use to private operators. Ask about their interest and the conditions needed for a viable project | Market sounding |
Assess the scope for new buildings against existing building footprints and the local ordinance. If there is no room to add buildings, consider reuse of existing facilities and other project methods.
References
Park-PFI and Related Utilization — MLIT Urban Bureau, Park and Green Space Division (2025)
Park-PFI Utilization Guidelines (May 2025 Revision) — MLIT Urban Bureau (2025)
Case Studies of Revenue Facility Placement in Urban Parks — MLIT Urban Bureau (2025)
