Park-PFI vs. the Designated Manager System: Which Should You Choose? [2026 Edition]

When exploring private-sector engagement in urban park management, one of the first choices encountered is between Park-PFI (the Public Solicitation Management System) and the designated manager system.

Despite the surface-level similarity of "involving private parties in parks," these two systems differ fundamentally in their scope, purpose, legal basis, and risk allocation. Selecting a system without understanding these differences risks choosing a framework that cannot be applied to the target facility — or failing to achieve the intended project objectives.

Fundamental Comparison Table

The comparison table makes clear that the most significant differences between the two systems reduce to two points: whether private parties construct facilities and the length of the project term.

---

Legal Structure of Park-PFI

Park-PFI was newly established as Articles 5-2 through 5-9 of the Urban Park Act (Act No. 79 of 1956) by the 2017 amendment. Because the Urban Park Act is its governing law, Park-PFI applies exclusively to urban parks (national urban parks and municipal urban parks). All categories — block parks, neighborhood parks, district parks, general parks, sports parks, special parks, and national parks — are eligible.

The legal flow under Park-PFI is as follows:

1. The park manager publishes the Public Solicitation Management Guidelines (Urban Park Act, Article 5-2, Paragraph 1)
2. Private businesses submit the Public Solicitation Management Plan (Article 5-2, Paragraph 3)
3. The park manager certifies the plan (Article 5-4)
4. The installation management permit is granted based on the certified plan (Article 5-2, Paragraph 9)

Importantly, facilities installed under Park-PFI are owned by the private business during the project term. The private operator constructs, owns, and manages the facility during that period, paying a usage fee to the municipality.

Legal Structure of the Designated Manager System

The designated manager system is grounded in Local Autonomy Act, Article 244-2, Paragraph 3, and was established in 2003. As a provision governing the management of public facilities, it is applicable to a wide range of public facilities — not only urban parks, but also libraries, sports halls, cultural facilities, and more.

The legal flow under the designated manager system is as follows:

1. The municipality establishes the designated manager system through ordinance
2. A designated manager is publicly solicited or specifically selected
3. The designation is formalized after a vote in the municipal assembly
4. The municipality and the designated manager conclude an agreement and management operations commence

Under the designated manager system, facility ownership remains with the government, and the private sector's role is strictly that of a management contractor. The authority and financial responsibility for facility renovations and equipment renewal vary according to the agreement.

---

Park-PFI: Maximum 20 Years

The installation permit term under Park-PFI is extended from the standard maximum of 10 years for park facilities to a maximum of 20 years upon certification.

However, obtaining the 20-year installation permit requires all four of the following conditions to be satisfied:

1. Selection through the statutory solicitation procedures under Article 5-2
2. Receipt of certification for the Public Solicitation Management Plan
3. The Public Solicitation Management Guidelines must explicitly state the certification validity period
4. The plan must include the installation of designated park facilities

The fourth condition is particularly critical. A plan that covers only the revenue-generating facility — without incorporating public park infrastructure improvements — cannot obtain the 20-year installation permit.

The 20-year permit makes long-term investment recovery possible for private operators, which in turn incentivizes the injection of private capital into park improvements — this is the core design logic of Park-PFI.

Designated Manager System: Typically 3–5 Years

There is no statutory upper limit on the designation period under the designated manager system, but 3–5 years is the prevailing norm in practice. From the private operator's perspective, the renewal-based nature of this framework makes it structurally difficult to recover large-scale capital investments.

Some municipalities set designation periods exceeding 10 years, but this requires assembly approval, and extended designations may face challenges from the assembly on transparency and competition grounds.

---

Risk Allocation under Park-PFI

Under Park-PFI, private operators construct and own facilities, and most risks are borne by the private sector.

Risk Allocation under the Designated Manager System

Under the designated manager system, the government retains facility ownership, and risks associated with the facility itself are borne by the government.

Park-PFI follows a "higher risk taken, higher long-term revenue potential" structure; the designated manager system follows a "lower risk taken, lower revenue ceiling" structure.

---

Revenue Structure under Park-PFI

Under Park-PFI, the private operator charges users directly for services at the revenue-generating facility (café, restaurant, etc.) and collects sales revenue. From this revenue, the operator pays a park usage fee (ground rent) to the municipality, and the remainder after deducting operating costs, equipment costs, etc., constitutes the operator's profit.

In addition to installing the revenue-generating facility, the private operator bears the cost of improving designated park facilities (benches, pathways, restrooms, etc.). Initial investment is therefore substantial, but revenue accumulates over 20 years.

[Revenue Flow]
Users → Usage fees / food sales → Private sector (revenue facility operations)
                                        ↓
                                  Park usage fee → Municipality
                                        ↓
                             Designated park facility improvement costs (upfront)
                                        ↓
                                  Operating costs / labor / equipment
                                        ↓
                                    Operator profit

Revenue Structure under the Designated Manager System

Under the designated manager system, the basic structure involves the municipality paying a designated management fee (entrustment fee) to the private operator. However, where the ordinance establishes a "user fee system," the operator may collect fees directly from users.

[Revenue Flow (management fee model)]
Municipality → Management fee → Private sector (management contractor)
                                       ↓
                                Management/operating costs, labor
                                       ↓
                                Operator profit (thin)

[Revenue Flow (user fee model)]
Users → User fees → Private sector (collected directly)
                         ↓
                  Management fee (government supplement, if any)
                         ↓
                  Management costs, labor
                         ↓
                  Operator profit

Under the designated manager system, operators may also offer independent services (retail, food service, classes, etc.) beyond the scope of management duties as "proprietary business activities." However, facility renovation and expansion require government approval.

---

The appropriate system depends on the park's situation, objectives, and scale. The following presents recommendations for representative scenarios.

Parks Where New Revenue-Generating Facilities Are to Be Installed → Park-PFI Recommended

For new installations of cafés, restaurants, glamping facilities, and similar, Park-PFI is the appropriate choice. The 20-year installation permit enables long-term private investment, and park infrastructure improvements can be realized with private funding.

Key conditions to verify:

• Is there sufficient area and building coverage ratio available at the proposed installation site?
• Is there infrastructure (paths, benches, restrooms, etc.) that can be incorporated into the plan as designated park facilities?
• Has a market sounding confirmed private-sector interest?

Parks Where Management of Existing Aging Facilities Is to Be Delegated → Designated Manager System Recommended

For improving the efficiency of day-to-day management of existing management buildings, sports facilities, and restrooms, the designated manager system is appropriate. It is suited to cases where the objective is cost reduction and service improvement without major facility renovation.

Small-Scale Block Parks → Context-Dependent Assessment Required

Block parks of roughly 0.25–1 hectare may not be economically viable for Park-PFI on a standalone basis. In such cases, the following alternatives should be considered:

• Multi-park packaging: Bundling multiple block parks into a single Park-PFI project, as in the Hachioji City case
• Small Concession: Combining with other underutilized public facilities to reach a viable project scale
• Designated manager system: Focusing on management efficiency and deferring revenue facility installation

Large Parks (10+ Hectares) → Hybrid: Park-PFI (for specific zones) + Designated Manager System (for overall management)

For large general parks and sports parks, a hybrid model — delegating overall maintenance to the designated manager system while installing revenue-generating facilities under Park-PFI in a specific zone — can be effective.

---

Hybrid Model: Park-PFI + Designated Manager System

Combining Park-PFI and the designated manager system within a single park is institutionally feasible and is a method being explored in large parks such as Kaiseizan Park in Koriyama City.

Example combination:

• Overall park maintenance (cleaning, landscaping, safety inspections): Designated manager system
• Café and restaurant building within the park (newly installed): Park-PFI

This combination allows the Park-PFI operator to focus on revenue facility operations while reducing the burden of overall park maintenance. However, where the Park-PFI operator and the designated manager are different entities, coordination on role delineation and cost allocation between the two parties is required.

Regardless of which system is chosen, prior sounding improves the quality of solicitation conditions. For guidance on sounding design and execution, see . For a broader comparison of PPP/PFI frameworks, PPP: 7 Methods Compared is also useful.

Guidelines for Enhancing the Quality of Urban Parks through Park-PFI (Revised May 30, 2025) (2025)

Local Autonomy Act, Article 244-2 (Designated Manager System) (2003)

Overview of PPP/PFI Promotion Policies (Explanation Session Materials) (2024)