5 Park-PFI Success Cases — From Large Urban Parks to Cities of 23,000 Residents [2026 Edition]
For municipal officials: Structural analysis of 5 successful Park-PFI (Public Solicitation Management System) cases. From Kaiseizan Park (Koriyama City) to Kadaru Terrace Kindaichi (Ninohe City, population 23,000), examining preconditions and success factors.
TL;DR
- Park-PFI is viable across municipal scales, from Ninohe City (23,000) to Koriyama City (330,000)
- Six typologies of small-scale success exist: regional resource, problem-solving, glamping, vertical, package, and townscape company models
- Common success factors across all cases are 'phased sounding' and 'engagement of local businesses'
Overview of 5 Cases
Comparative fact sheets for 5 cases across Koriyama, Mutsu, Ninohe, Beppu, and Hachioji
Five successful cases of Park-PFI (Public Solicitation Management System) have been selected, ranging from large to small parks. These cases demonstrate that the 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 (330,000) | 12.89ha | Daiwa Lease Group | Café, bakery, multipurpose |
| PARK DAIKANYAMA | Mutsu City (56,000) | — | Mutsu Real Estate Trading Center | Glamping, dining, dog run |
| Kadaru Terrace Kindaichi | Ninohe City (23,000) | 2ha (neighborhood park) | Kadaru Mirai (SPC) | Hot spring, sauna, accommodation, restaurant |
| Harukigawa Park | Beppu City (110,000) | 0.92ha | Minerva (SPC) | Supermarket, artificial turf field, café |
| Takakura Park and Others | Hachioji City (580,000) | 0.25ha × 5 | — | Ball play areas |
Case 1: Kaiseizan Park (Koriyama City, Fukushima Prefecture)
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Approach | Park-PFI + Designated Manager System |
| Project Period | 2024–2043 (19 years) |
| Development Cost | Approx. ¥700 million (municipality 90% / private 10%+) |
| Designated Management Fee | ¥1.44 billion over 19 years (approx. ¥75.87 million/year) |
| Operator | Daiwa Lease Group (5-company JV: 1 major firm + 3 local companies + 1 management firm) |
Structural Success Factors
Three-phase sounding: Market needs were progressively refined through three stages — Trial (social experiment format), Pre-sounding, and Market sounding. An incentive design awarding 5 bonus points in the public tender to Trial participants and 3 points to Market Sounding participants encouraged early engagement.
Major firm × local JV: The combination of Daiwa Lease (national expertise) and three local companies (community ties and construction capacity) received high marks in the evaluation.
Preconditions
- Core city with a population of 330,000 (high private sector interest in participation)
- Annual park visitors of approximately 1.4 million (sufficient footfall to support return on investment)
- Approximately 4-year preparation period from planning to opening
Case 2: PARK DAIKANYAMA (Mutsu City, Aomori Prefecture)
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Population | Approx. 56,000 |
| 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 strategy: A unique positioning as "northernmost glamping on Honshu." Rather than large-scale facility investment, the use of movable trailer houses kept initial costs low while commanding premium pricing through scarcity.
Local company leadership: Rather than a major general contractor or PPP specialist firm, a local real estate company led the project as representative operator. A proposal grounded in local context successfully revitalized an underutilized park.
Case 3: Kadaru Terrace Kindaichi (Ninohe City, Iwate Prefecture)
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Population | Approx. 23,000 |
| Park Classification | Neighborhood park (2ha) |
| Operator | Kadaru Mirai (locally funded, quasi-public townscape company) + SPC |
| Business Type | Hot spring, sauna, accommodation, restaurant, indoor pool |
| Award | Japan Society of Civil Engineers Design Award 2023, Excellence Prize |
Structural Success Factors
Utilization of local resources: The project integrated the replacement of an aging municipal hot spring facility with Park-PFI. By positioning the hot spring — a locally distinctive resource — as the primary revenue driver, financial viability was achieved even in a town of 23,000.
Local investment model: With a locally funded townscape company at the core of the SPC, the structure ensures that money circulates within the community. This model of not depending on external capital has high replicability for small municipalities.
What this case demonstrates: Park-PFI is viable even in municipalities of around 20,000. However, the prerequisite is the presence of a strong local resource such as a hot spring.
Case 4: Harukigawa Park (Beppu City, Oita Prefecture)
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Area | Approx. 0.92ha (under 1ha) |
| Operator | Minerva (SPC) = Local sports club + local retailer |
| Business Type | 1F: Supermarket; 2F: Artificial turf field + café |
| Annual Municipal Revenue | Approx. ¥14 million |
Structural Success Factors
Overcoming constraints through vertical design: The challenge of a 0.92ha narrow site was resolved by stacking uses vertically (1F commercial / 2F sports). The project also generated media attention as the first multilevel urban park in western Japan.
Agility of local SPC: A sports club and retailer formed an SPC, integrating each party's core business with the park operation. The self-contained local structure enhanced financial viability without relying on major firms.
Case 5: Takakura Park and 5 Other Parks (Hachioji City, Tokyo)
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Park Classification | Neighborhood park (0.25ha) × 5 parks |
| Business Type | "Ball-play areas" |
Structural Success Factors
Packaging: Five neighborhood parks of 0.25ha — individually too small to be financially viable — were combined into a single project, creating a scale sufficient for private sector entry. A conceptual shift overcame the structural constraint.
Six Typologies of Small-Scale Success
Regional resource, problem-solving, glamping, vertical, package, and townscape company models
Analysis of the 5 cases reveals six typologies of successful Park-PFI in smaller parks.
| Typology | Representative Case | Core Logic |
|---|---|---|
| Regional Resource | Kadaru Terrace Kindaichi | Secure a primary revenue source through location-specific resources such as hot springs |
| Problem-Solving | Yanagimachi Children's Park (Mutsu City) | Use social infrastructure (childcare) rather than food and beverage as the revenue facility |
| Glamping | PARK DAIKANYAMA | Low investment, strong branding, premium pricing even in regional areas |
| Vertical | Harukigawa Park | Resolve narrow-site constraints through multi-level design |
| Package | Takakura Park | Consolidate multiple small parks into a single project |
| Townscape Company | Kadaru Terrace Kindaichi | Local investment SPC ensures money circulates within the community |
Precondition Comparison and Structural Analysis
Comparative framework and extraction of shared success factors
Two structural success factors are common across all 5 cases.
1. Phased sounding: The three-phase approach at Kaiseizan Park is emblematic, but in all other cases as well, some form of dialogue with the private sector took place before the public tender. There are no successful cases in which "going straight to public tender" worked.
2. Engagement of local businesses: In 4 of the 5 cases, local companies serve as the JV representative or core entity. Creating a structure in which local businesses are involved and local money circulates is the key to sustainable project operation.
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.
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 there sufficient footfall? What local resources exist? Will private operators participate?
ISVD provides free support for the early stages of Park-PFI implementation, from sounding design to project scheme development.
References
Public Solicitation Management System (Park-PFI) (2024)
Park-PFI Case Studies for Small-Scale Parks (FY2024 Workshop) (2024)
Related Consulting & Support
PPP / Public-Private Partnership Support
Free Initial ConsultationSupporting multi-sector partnership design and project advancement across government, business, and NPOs.