What Is Park-PFI (Public Solicitation Management System)? A Complete Guide to the Framework, Benefits, and Case Studies

Park-PFI (the Public Solicitation Management System) is a framework established by the 2017 amendment to Japan's Urban Park Act (Articles 5-2 through 5-9).

The core concept is the integration of revenue and improvement. Operators of revenue-generating facilities (solicited park facilities) — such as cafes, restaurants, and shops — are selected through competitive solicitation, and a portion of their revenue funds the development of surrounding park infrastructure (designated park facilities) such as paths, plazas, and benches. By leveraging private business expertise and earning power, parks can be improved in quality while minimizing the financial burden on municipalities.

This "integration" design is what makes Park-PFI fundamentally different. Under Japan's traditional park administration, roles were divided: "the government builds, the private sector operates." The government secured construction budgets, and designated managers operated the completed facilities — a two-stage structure. But as park funding shrank, this structure reached its limits. Park-PFI is innovative because it institutionalized a virtuous cycle: "the private sector generates revenue, and that revenue improves the park."

As of March 31, 2025, Park-PFI has been applied in 165 parks nationwide, with 136 additional parks currently under consideration. It is rapidly establishing itself as the most significant public-private partnership tool in urban park management.

Park-PFI is not a "nice-to-have" framework. It was designed as an institutional response to structural problems facing Japan's urban parks.

Aging Parks, Shrinking Budgets

Japan has approximately 114,000 urban parks. Many were built during the high-growth era through the bubble period, meaning their playgrounds, restrooms, and pathways are simultaneously reaching the end of their useful lives. However, park management budgets represent only a fraction of total municipal expenditures, and increases are not realistic amid population decline and falling tax revenues.

The result: broken playground equipment removed and left unreplaced, restrooms deteriorating without renovation, tree pruning falling behind. Parks were built in sufficient "quantity," but their "quality" can no longer be maintained.

Existing Frameworks Cannot Recover Investment

Conventional park management methods were structurally unable to address these challenges.

The Designated Management System is the most widely used framework for park management, but designation periods are typically only 3 to 5 years. Even if a private operator invests tens of millions of yen in renovations, the possibility of losing the designation after 3 years makes aggressive investment irrational.

Occupancy permits (Article 6) allow facility installation within parks, but permits last a maximum of 10 years. Moreover, the types of occupancy facilities are legally restricted, making it difficult to install revenue-generating facilities like cafes or shops.

Standard installation permits (Article 5) are also capped at 10 years — insufficient for capital-intensive businesses like restaurants. If an operator invests 10 million yen in interior construction but can only operate for 10 years, the depreciation alone is 1 million yen per year. This structure fails to create viable entry incentives for private operators.

In short, no rational solution existed under the existing frameworks for either "private operators who want to improve parks" or "municipalities that lack the budget." Park-PFI filled this structural gap through three institutional design elements: extended permit terms, site coverage exceptions, and mandatory pairing with improvement obligations.

Multiple methods exist for activating and managing urban parks beyond Park-PFI. Understanding how Park-PFI is positioned among them requires a structural overview of their differences.

Park-PFI differs decisively from other methods in two ways: its permit length and the fact that it is paired with an improvement obligation.

The 20-year permit allows private operators to build business plans that recover large upfront investments. If an operator builds a 30-million-yen cafe, a 20-year operating window means 1.5 million yen in annual depreciation. At 10 years, that becomes 3 million yen — this difference determines whether market entry is viable.

Meanwhile, the improvement obligation (constructing designated park facilities) guarantees tangible public benefit. The fact that the framework structurally prevents the criticism that "only the private sector profits" is a politically astute design feature of Park-PFI.

For idle public facilities other than parks (closed schools, traditional townhouses, former government buildings, etc.), Small Concessions is the appropriate framework. The differences are discussed later.

The greatest appeal of Park-PFI lies in three special provisions unavailable under standard installation permits. These are critical institutional incentives that determine whether private operators can justify participation.

Special Provision 1: Extension of Installation Permit to 20 Years

While a standard installation and management permit (Article 5, paragraph 1) lasts a maximum of 10 years, receiving Park-PFI certification effectively extends this to up to 20 years.

However, all of the following conditions must be met to qualify:

1. Selected as the "designated installation party" through the competitive solicitation process under Article 5-2.
2. Submission of a public solicitation installation plan and receipt of certification meeting the requirements of Article 5-4.
3. The certification validity period must be specified in the public solicitation guidelines.
4. The plan must include construction of designated park facilities (revenue facilities alone do not qualify).

The fourth condition is the most critical. A plan focused solely on installing a cafe or shop does not qualify for the 20-year provision. Paired development of park infrastructure is a prerequisite.

Why "20 years"? This number has a clear rationale. The statutory useful life of food service buildings is generally 15 to 22 years (15 years for wood-frame, 19 years for steel-frame, 22 years for reinforced concrete). A 20-year term means "an investment recovery period roughly matching the building's lifespan." Ten years is too short for profitability; 30 years makes operator turnover difficult. Twenty years was designed as the equilibrium point between private investment incentives and park management flexibility.

After the permit period ends, two options are available. Choosing re-solicitation (continuing Park-PFI) allows the 20-year provision to apply again, but transitioning to a standard permit (Article 5, paragraph 1) reduces the term to a maximum of 10 years and eliminates the site coverage provision.

Special Provision 2: Site Coverage Increase to 12%

The reference standard under the Urban Park Act for building site coverage is normally 2%, but facilities receiving Park-PFI certification can access a 10% supplemental provision, raising the maximum to 12%.

Why "2%" as the baseline and "12%" as the ceiling? The 2% reference standard for urban park site coverage is rooted in the principle that "open space is the protagonist of a park." For a 1-hectare park, buildings are limited to 200 m² — roughly one small management building measuring 10 m × 20 m. This constraint is precisely what has preserved parks as "green spaces."

However, at 2%, there is virtually no physical room for revenue-generating facilities. Raising the ceiling to 12% allows a 1-hectare park to accommodate 1,200 m² of buildings — for example, a 200 m² cafe plus a 1,000 m² recreational facility. The 12% figure represents the equilibrium point: "the minimum building area at which a revenue business can operate while preserving the park's character as open space."

An important caveat: the figures above are reference standards under national law. The actual figures applied are those set by each municipality's local ordinance. Also, the supplemental coverage for recreational facilities and solicited facilities is shared up to a combined 10%, which requires attention when both coexist.

Special Provision 3: Expanded Occupancy Facilities

Convenience-enhancing facilities such as bicycle parking, signboards, and advertising towers — ordinarily prohibited in urban parks — may be installed as occupancy facilities when included in a Park-PFI plan.

The significance of this provision lies in revenue diversification. Funding park improvements from cafe revenue alone is not easy. Advertising income from signboards and towers, bicycle parking fees, and other revenue streams strengthen the stability of the business plan.

Park-PFI commercialization spans multiple phases from initial consideration to opening. The Kaiseizan Park project in Koriyama City required approximately four years from initial consideration (March 2020) to opening (April 2024). The role and key considerations of each phase are outlined below.

Phase 0: Momentum Building and Internal Organizational Preparation (6 months – 1 year)

This begins with explaining the Park-PFI framework to the mayor, assembly, and relevant departments. When broader understanding of PPP/PFI is limited internally, this phase often takes the most time. Site visits to pioneering municipalities and attendance at national government briefings are effective approaches.

In terms of cost, many municipalities select an advisory firm at this stage. In Koriyama, Oriental Consultants was selected through a public proposal process for "Park-PFI Project Support Services." Advisory fees range from several million to tens of millions of yen depending on project scale. The national government provides cost support through "support for PPP/PFI investigation in urban parks," which should be considered.

Phase 1: Market Sounding (6 months – 1 year)

The MLIT guidelines recommend conducting market soundings in two stages: at the project conception stage and at the feasibility study stage.

• Step 1 (Project Conception Stage): Confirming market viability and gathering private-sector ideas. Information such as park overview, drawings, current site coverage ratio, and policy for handling existing facilities is shared.
• Step 2 (Feasibility Study Stage): Disclosing draft solicitation conditions and confirming intent to participate. Input on usage fee levels and designated facility construction cost targets is also collected.

The Kaiseizan Park project in Koriyama City further developed this into a three-stage design.

The bonus points awarded to sounding participants (5 points for trial participation, 3 points for market participation) are a notable incentive design encouraging early private-sector engagement. For detailed guidance on sounding design and execution, see The Complete Guide to Park-PFI Market Soundings.

Phase 2: Drafting and Publishing the Public Solicitation Guidelines (3–6 months)

The public solicitation guidelines have statutory required contents (Article 5-2, paragraph 2, items 1–10). Key items include:

Under law, the deadline for submitting plans must be set at at least one month after the guideline publication date. In practice, periods of 2 to 3 months are common to allow private operators sufficient time for consortium formation and business plan development.

Phase 3: Solicitation, Review, and Selection (3–6 months)

Selection follows a two-stage structure.

Stage 1 (Screening): Confirmation of conformity with the guidelines, verification of construction and operational certainty (objective materials), technical screening (track record), and financial capability assessment (no net liabilities in the most recent financial statements).

Stage 2 (Evaluation): Only applications passing screening proceed to quantitative scoring across 6 evaluation categories. The law requires an evaluation and selection committee comprising at least two members with academic expertise.

The six evaluation categories are:

Notably, category ② includes the participation of local businesses. This creates a design advantage for "mixed consortiums" — where a major operator leads but local landscaping, construction, and content companies are incorporated. In the Kaiseizan Park project, a consortium led by Daiwa Lease (Daiwa House Group) with four local firms (publishing, cleaning, construction, engineering) was selected. For detailed guidance on evaluation criteria, see How to Read Park-PFI Scoring Criteria.

Phase 4: Certification, Agreement, and Permitting

After selection as the designated installation party, the process continues with: submitting the public solicitation installation plan for certification → executing a basic agreement → obtaining the installation management permit. Building Standards Act Article 48 permits (use district restrictions) may also be required, and where the Designated Management System is combined, a municipal assembly vote is necessary.

Phase 5: Construction and Opening

Construction of designated park facilities and revenue facilities proceeds, leading to the project opening. Cost-sharing structures vary by project, but in the Kaiseizan Park case, the arrangement was: municipality bearing up to 90% of designated facility construction costs (approx. 630 million yen), with the private operator bearing at least 10% (approx. 70 million yen). Revenue facilities (cafes, etc.) are built and operated entirely at the private operator's expense.

As of March 31, 2025, 165 parks nationwide have adopted Park-PFI. This section analyzes the trends behind that number.

Large-Scale Representative Case: Kaiseizan Park, Koriyama City

The Kaiseizan Park project is one of the most widely referenced Park-PFI cases nationally, combining Park-PFI with the Designated Management System in an integrated model.

Three key takeaways emerge from this case. First, the three-stage sounding process — a deliberate public-private dialogue — successfully attracted two applicants (two joint ventures). Second, the business design combined multiple revenue streams: designated management fees (approx. 75.87 million yen/year) + usage fees from revenue facilities + profit-sharing contributions. Third, the mixed consortium of a major firm (Daiwa Lease) with four local companies proved advantageous under the evaluation criteria.

Cases in Small Municipalities

In July 2024, the Japan Park and Greenery Association held the first-ever training session titled "Park-PFI Case Studies in Small Parks." Five cases were presented demonstrating that Park-PFI is not limited to large cities or large parks.

Six Success Typologies

Analyzing these cases reveals six success typologies for small-scale Park-PFI.

The Ninohe City case — Kadaru Terrace Kanedaichi — deserves special attention. A municipality with a population of approximately 23,000 established a viable revenue pillar by combining local hot spring resources. Rather than relying on a major corporation, a locally invested town development company served as the lead operator — a pioneering model for "keeping money in the region." Its receipt of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers Design Award 2023 (Excellence) also demonstrates that design quality is a critical success factor for Park-PFI.

The Yanagimachi Children's Park case proved that Park-PFI's "revenue facility" is not limited to food service. Installing a licensed nursery school within a park simultaneously addresses childcare shortages and park revitalization — a pioneering model for non-food-service Park-PFI applications.

For comprehensive case analysis, see Park-PFI Nationwide Case Studies.

When considering Park-PFI, understanding how it differs from Small Concessions is essential. Both involve "private activation of public spaces," but they are institutionally distinct frameworks.

Institutional Comparison

Decision Framework: Which Should You Choose?

The most fundamental criterion is: "Is the target facility an urban park subject to the Urban Park Act?"

• The facility you want to activate is an urban park → Park-PFI
• The facility is a closed school, traditional townhouse, or former government building → Small Concession
• You have both types → Consider Park-PFI and Small Concessions in parallel

The two frameworks are not in competition — they are complementary, differentiated by the type of target facility. In practice, cases where a single municipality uses Park-PFI for a park while simultaneously applying Small Concessions to a closed school are expected to increase.

However, there is a maturity gap between the two frameworks. Park-PFI has accumulated nine years of history since its 2017 establishment, with 165 parks of track record and extensive guidelines. Small Concessions, by contrast, saw its platform launched only in December 2024 and is still building its case portfolio.

For more on Small Concessions, see What Is a Small Concession? A Complete Guide for Local Government Officials.

Three national government support programs are available for Park-PFI commercialization:

1. Social Capital Development Grant: National subsidy for designated park facility construction costs. Under Park-PFI, this grant can substantially reduce the municipality's effective financial burden.
2. Urban Development Fund (Vitalization Promotion Project Funds): When local governments lend funds to operators, the national government provides interest-bearing loans covering up to 50%. This indirectly supports private operators' capital procurement.
3. Feasibility Study Support: National cost support for market soundings and feasibility investigations. Available during Phases 0–1, this is particularly useful for municipalities that "want to try a sounding but have no budget."

Three practical first steps for moving toward Park-PFI commercialization:

The lessons from case studies are valuable, but results are not guaranteed to replicate in your park. Location characteristics, catchment population, existing facility conditions, and private-sector demand — without clarifying these baseline conditions, launching a solicitation process risks receiving zero applications.

ISVD offers free consultations to help municipalities clarify their baseline conditions and co-design optimal public-private partnership frameworks for park activation.

References

Park-PFI Utilization Guidelines (Revised May 30, 2025) (2025)

Park-PFI Implementation Status (as of March 31, 2025) (2025)

Koriyama City Kaiseizan Park Park-PFI Project Public Solicitation Guidelines (2022)

Koriyama City Kaiseizan Park Park-PFI Project (Official Page) (2022)

PPP/PFI Action Plan (FY2025 Revision) (2025)

Park-PFI (Public Solicitation Management System) (2024)