Project Overview
Selection dates / certified plan submitters / business content for 4 parks
Simultaneous Offering
4 parks
Jouganji/Gofuku/Iwase/Taikoyama
Operator Decision
Feb 2024
committee Feb 9
No Applications
1 park
Iwase Sports Park
Toyama Prefecture implemented simultaneous Park-PFI (Public Offering Management System) offerings in November 2023 for four prefectural urban parks (Jouganji River Park / Gofuku Park / Iwase Sports Park / Taikoyama Land). On February 9, 2024, the selection committee convened; Jouganji River Park received 3 proposals, Gofuku Park received 1, and Taikoyama Land received 1, while Iwase Sports Park received no applications, and operators for the three parks with applicants were decided.
Following the decisions, "BBQ TERRACE" now operates at Jouganji River Park, Daiwa Lease Co., Ltd. (Toyama Branch) develops dining facilities + a wooded plaza + parking at Gofuku Park, and "Adventure Garden Imizu" (opened April 13, 2025) operates at Taikoyama Land (Prefectural Park).
Prefecture-Led Model
Institutional positioning and business design when prefecture serves as implementing entity
Under Park-PFI, the implementing entity can institutionally be national government, prefecture, or municipality. However, the majority of nationwide Park-PFI cases involve municipal parks (municipal entities), and prefectural park cases (prefectural entities) are relatively few.
The Toyama Prefecture case represents a landmark business model for prefecture-led Park-PFI. Prefecture-led implementation has three characteristics. First, target parks tend to be either wide-area (spanning multiple municipalities) or large-scale (over 10 ha). Second, business scheme approval requires prefectural assembly approval, tending to take longer than municipal entities. Third, business budget entity is the prefecture, and business scale can be larger than municipal parks.
Toyama Prefecture's choice of a large-scale model of simultaneous 4-park offering reflects intent for prefecture-led business efficiency. Between conducting 4 separate offerings versus 1 simultaneous offering, administrative costs differ significantly across offering design, selection committee, and operator briefing sessions. Simultaneous offering contributes to procedural efficiency.
Characteristics of Simultaneous 4-Park Offering
Business efficiency + wide operator acceptance + zero-application park risk
Beyond business efficiency, simultaneous 4-park offering yields two effects. First, expanded options for applicant operators. Operators can either specialize in the park with the highest anticipated business viability or apply to multiple parks. Second, prefecture gains a learning effect from comparing application status when making selection judgments.
However, simultaneous offering introduces the challenge of application variance. In Toyama, Iwase Sports Park received no applications, and its offering did not result in a selection.
| Park | Proposals | Selection Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Jouganji River Park | 3 proposals | Relative comparison possible in committee |
| Gofuku Park | 1 proposal | No relative comparison; standalone acceptance judgment needed |
| Taikoyama Land | 1 proposal | No relative comparison; standalone acceptance judgment needed |
| Iwase Sports Park | No applications | No operators applied; offering unsuccessful |
Explicitly clarifying acceptance criteria in advance for standalone proposals that meet business requirements is necessary.
Individual Business Schemes
Specifics of BBQ TERRACE (Jouganji River) + Gofuku Park (Daiwa Lease) + Adventure Garden Imizu (Taikoyama)
Jouganji River Park's "BBQ TERRACE" is an outdoor leisure-specialized business scheme centered on barbecue facilities. Leveraging the river park's location conditions, it captures day-trip and family visitor demand.
Gofuku Park's selected operator is Daiwa Lease Co., Ltd. (Toyama Branch), with a stay-oriented design developing dining facilities + a wooded plaza + parking that leverages the park's green location.
Taikoyama Land (Prefectural Park)'s "Adventure Garden Imizu" is a business scheme that regenerates the underused Red Roof Gallery with a self-service café + book-trade space + challenge shops (opened April 13, 2025). It utilizes existing prefectural park spatial resources as a complementary design.
Implications for Other Municipalities
Prefectural park Park-PFI applicability conditions and difference from municipal parks
Three points to consider by prefectures referencing the Toyama Prefecture business model.
First, while both prefectural and municipal parks fall under Park-PFI's target, prefectural parks have wide-area and large-scale characteristics, differing from municipal parks in business scheme selection and business budget design. When considering prefecture-led business models, explicitly recognize this characteristic.
Second, simultaneous multi-park offering contributes to business efficiency but bears the risk of application variance affecting selection accuracy. Clarify standalone proposal acceptance criteria in advance and prepare to prevent selection committee discussion confusion.
Third, prefecture-led Park-PFI often requires collaboration with municipalities as a precondition. Since prefectural park location and utilization deeply involve municipal residents, incorporate processes reflecting municipal opinions in offering design.
Park-PFI Complete Guide
Comprehensive explanation of the system, procedures, and cases
Hisaya-odori Park Independent-Accounting Park-PFI
The business scheme of Japan's largest-class Park-PFI
Park-PFI vs Designated Manager System
Differences, use cases, and combination patterns of the two systems
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.
This coverage-ratio uplift is not 10 percentage points for rest facilities and another 10 for solicited park facilities: the two share a single 10%. In a park that has already reached 12% with rest or sports facilities, no new amenity facility can be added as a solicited park facility. Both that 10% and the ordinary 2% are figures the law asks local governments to take into account, and the ratio that applies is the one each local government sets in its own ordinance.
References
Park-PFI Implementation Status (as of 31 March 2026) — MLIT City Bureau (2026)
Park-PFI Case Collection — MLIT City Bureau (2026)
Guidelines on Using Park-PFI to Improve Urban Park Quality (May 2025 revision) — MLIT City Bureau (2025)
