The Implications of Population Decline and Fiscal Austerity on Public Nature: Insights From the Evolution of Urban Park Management System in Japan

Abstract

Facing challenges of population decline and fiscal austerity, Japan has implemented a series of initiatives to promote public-private partnerships (PPP) to ensure the sustainability of urban parks and revitalize urban spaces. These initiatives, while alleviating the government's financial burdens on parks, have also raised concerns about the potential erosion of publicness and public interests resulted from the commercialization of public assets. This paper reviews the evolution of Japan's urban park management system after World War Ⅱ—including three phases of being purely public goods, initiating marketization, and diversifying management entities. The functions of parks have continuously enriched, and the construction, management, and operational modes have shifted from government-led towards multi-stakeholder participation, along with expanded funding sources. By examining the PPP types, driving forces, implementation mechanisms and challenges in urban park management, this paper points out that, in different eras and social contexts, the Japanese government has kept adjusting its role to maximize public interests. This has proactively updated the implications of publicness in infrastructure like urban parks, from a post-war opposite of publicness versus privateness on ownership, to the participation of private capital for a higher efficiency, and finally to a community for a stronger regional competitiveness. The reforms of urban park management system in Japan offer significant lessons and insights for urban infrastructure management in other countries and regions.

● Proposes that the evolution of Japan's urban park management system has undergone three phases: being purely public goods, initiating marketization, and diversifying management entities

● Analyzes the implementation forms and driving forces of public-private partnership modes in Japan's urban parks

● Discusses how the Japanese government, by continuously adjusting its role over time, maximizes public interests and promotes the contextual transition of the public nature of urban infrastructure

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Publicness / Landscape Justice / Public-Private Partnership / "Private Finance Initiative" System for Parks / Urban Parks / Management System / Urban Infrastructure

1 Introduction

In his book Publicness, Japanese scholar Junichi Saito elucidated three folds of meanings of the term "publicness." First, from the perspective of national administration, publicness refers to official functions and scope; second, it denotes common resources and interests of the public; and third, it represents the open public domains and spaces^[1]. For Japan, the process from the state's "monopoly" on public nature in the 1960s to the shaping of "civic public nature" in the 1990s, and later to the understanding of the connotation of public nature from the perspective of "community, " reflects the cognitive evolution of public nature from a single state-led approach to pluralization and democratization. Research represented by Dwight Waldo's The Administrative State^[2] and Robert B. Denhardt's The New Public Service^[3] emphasizes the public nature and value orientation of public services while denying the view that considers public services merely as tools for producing services. Since the 1980s, in response to the tendency of excessive managerialism, some scholars have called for the reinforcement of government's public nature. The "Blacksburg Manifesto" represented by James H. Wamsley, Jeffrey Wolf, and Charles T. Goodsell and the school of "New Public Service" represented by Denhardt emphasize that the connotation of public nature should include not only basic attributes such as fairness, justice, and responsibility, but also public interests and values rather than merely achieving specific management goals^[4].

In the field of public services, the relationship between the government and the market often defines the core for in-depth critical exploration of public nature—it is always unavoidable to answer how it intervenes, participates, and influences the discourse of public nature. Burton A. Weisbrod's "market failure theory" and "government failure theory" emphasize that non-profitable public services will "fail" due to insufficient supply and the dependence on government intervention; while, as public demand increases, the government may also "fail" due to inefficient responses or corruption issues. This means that public services cannot be provided solely by the government or the market^[5]. Therefore, how the government regulates its relationship with the market and how to better guide the establishment of management system are key to the development of public facilities.

Currently, many developed countries around the world, including Japan, are facing problems such as increased fiscal burden, slackened service provision, and intergenerational interest imbalance, aggravating the dilemma of public nature in public services^{[6] [7]}. In East Asia, China is facing similar issues in population structure and fiscal situation. Chinese scholars have extensively discussed issues related to the public nature of urban public services, as well as topics of spatial justice including discourse construction^[8], public values^[9], spatial characteristics^[10], uneven distribution^[11], and evaluation and improvement standards^{[12] [13]}. However, in the context of population decline, fiscal austerity, and the pressing need to effectively reduce local debts, the contradiction between the sustainability of public facilities and the loss of public nature—introducing private capital is vital to the former, but the absence of fairness and supervision in marketization would exacerbate the latter—has also brought new challenges to how we examine public nature.

This paper reviews the history of how the Japanese government improved its urban park management system to adapt to the demands of times. On one hand, it outlines the formation and development of the publicness and privateness in the urban park management system; on the other hand, it sorts out the experience in promoting efficient operation of public facilities and reducing fiscal allotment through the introduction of public-private partnership (PPP) modes, and further analyzes the implementation mechanisms and driving forces, which in turn leads to reflections on the implication changes of the public nature of urban parks that act as carriers of basic societal welfare and public services.

2 The Publicness and Privateness in the Evolution of Japan's Urban Park Management System

2.1 The Origin of Privateness of Urban Parks in Japan

During the Edo Era (1603 ~ 1868), the concept of "park, " as a public infrastructure, did not exist in Japan. The earliest batch of parks had resulted from the transformation of private lands into public land in the 1870s—suitable sites for recreational use were converted from private territories belonging to daimyos^①, samurai, temples, and shrines into places directly open to the public. Examples include the Ueno Park from Kaneiji Temple, and the Asakusa Park from Sensoji Temple. The Japanese government formally proposed the concept of "park" in 1873^{[14] [15]}. Along with the introduction of Western urban planning concepts, Japan's first urban planning regulation, the Tokyo City Improvement Ordinance, issued in 1888, designated 49 modern parks in a grid pattern. Only two of them were completely newly built parks by government's fiscal allotment, one of which was Hibiya Park, known as "Tokyo's Central Park"^[16]. Most sites of these parks were later incorporated into state-owned land. The government retained some revenue from park operation (e.g., the income of land rent, ryotei^②, sales of dead wood) as the funds for park administrative expenditures including routine management and maintenance, subsequent new park construction, and even employee salaries^[17].

① Daimyo: regional lords during the Edo Era.

② Ryotei: high-class traditional Japanese restaurants.

Before World War Ⅱ, the operation of urban parks in Japan was not funded by the government' fiscal allotment. From the Meiji Era to the early Showa Era (1868 ~ 1946), parks operated upon independent revenue–expenditure systems, with land rent as the main source of funding. Early in the Taisho Era (1912 ~ 1926), some parks set up profitable facilities such as boating areas, swimming pools, tennis courts, baseball fields, music halls, and restaurants, and the income from these facilities also comprised the parks' revenue. The most famous case is the Matsumoto-ro in Hibiya Park (completed in 1903), a restaurant opened from the second year of the park's completion and has been running till now^{[16] [18]}. There are also some ryoteis, teahouses, and inns in the Hamadera Park in Osaka and the Nara Park in Nara that have been running since the Meiji Era.

2.2 Development of the Publicness in the Urban Park Management System in Japan

2.2.1 Phase of Being Purely Public Goods (1956 ~ 1967): Establishment of the Park Management System

During and for a period after World War Ⅱ, the lack of clear legal regulations on profitable facilities in urban parks led to the loopholes in management ownerships and the proliferation of profitable facilities. Additionally, various temporary facilities were built in parks during the wartime, seriously eroding the public attributes and functions of parks.

The prevailing view at that time was expressed by scholar Tatsuo Moriwaki in his article Publicness of Urban Parks published in 1949 that the establishment of parks was originally for public interests and parks should be part of public utilities that do not prioritize profits; to prevent public facilities from being monopolized by private entities, neither the park itself nor the facilities within should be entrusted to profitable activities by private entities^[19]. To restore park functions and standardize park management, the Japanese government issued the Urban Park Act in 1956, which clearly stipulated that any private rights could not be exercised within park land. Also, the Management Entrustment System proposed in this act had strict limitations that emphasized the government's dominant role in park management and private capital was only allowed when public entities (i.e. the government) were unable to implement.

Until the 1960s, under the national bureaucracy in Japan, the general public held that the publicness of parks could be fully represented by public power, while private economy, representing the privateness, was heavily suppressed in the management and operation of public property. From the mid-1950s to the early 1970s, Japan's economy was witnessed a rapid growth, and high-input, low-return infrastructure was almost maintained by the government's tax revenue, where public spatial management accounting for approximately 45% of urban infrastructure expenditure^[20].

2.2.2 Phase of Initiating Marketization (1968 ~ 1999): Introduction of PPP Modes

During the 1970s and 1980s, facing the impact of the privatization wave in mainstream Western capitalist countries, as well as the pressure of incomplete economic reforms, Japan started its gradual administrative reforms^{[21] [22]}. In 1983, the government began implementing state-owned land transfer policies to improve land use efficiency through market mechanisms. In 1986, Japan promulgated the Act on Temporary Measures Concerning the Promotion of the Construction of Specific Facilities Through the Participation of Private Enterprises, facilitating the introduction of private capital into public services and infrastructure construction, in order to enhance the quality and efficiency of public services by market-based means.

Since the bubble economy burst in the early 1990s, the Japanese government has faced enormous fiscal deficit pressure. As a response, the government proposed a series of reform measures to reduce its direct intervention on the economy and to attract more private capital and enterprises through PPP modes, so as to improve the management efficiency in public sectors. At the same time, the promotion of decentralization reform and the introduction of New Public Management^③[23^] concepts further advanced the privatization of public utilities^{[24] [25]}. In 1999, Japan issued the Act on Promotion of Private Finance Initiative to promote the use of private capital, management experience, and technology for the construction, maintenance, and operation of public facilities. This law not only legally guaranteed the access of private capital into public sectors but also laid the foundation for the subsequent diversification of urban park management.

③ Influenced by neoliberal economy ideas, the concept of New Public Management originated in the 1980s emphasized the introduction of management methods and market mechanisms from private entities to improve the efficiency and service quality of public utilities, as well as the administration transparency of the government (source: Ref. [23]).

2.2.3 Phase of Diversifying Management Entities (2000 to Present): Park Management System in the Context of Population Decline

In the 21st century, against the backdrop of a continuous population decline and insufficient local funding, public infrastructure, including primary and high schools, public housing, hospitals, government office buildings, sports centers, libraries, museums, and parks, has faced a crisis of sustainability^[7]. Among these, local urban parks, which account for nearly 70% of Japan's urban park area (with a total area of approximately 85,870 hm²), have also reported a shrunken amount of visits^[26]. Furthermore, population decline has led to a sharp decrease in local tax revenue, resulting in insufficient maintenance and management funds for urban parks and the dilapidation of public facilities.

In 2001, with the introduction of Koizumi Structural Reform, an open, deregulated market was established, and some state-owned enterprises underwent privatization. In 2003, the government abolished the Management Entrustment System^[27] and initiated the Designated Manager System, allowing private enterprises, NPOs, and other organizations to participate in the operation of public facilities through franchising. This marked that the dominant role in the management of public facilities was no longer limited to the government or other public entities^[28].

After 2010, as the promotion of the facility management concept, the establishment and growth of public organizations such as the Japan Facility Management Association (JFMA), Japan Park Facilities Association (JPFA), and Parks & Open Space Association (POSA), further contributed to the development of PPP modes. These organizations have facilitated the engagement of private enterprises in public utilities through close collaborations with public departments, in forms of certification, training, awards, seminars, and exchange meetings.

In 2017, the Japanese government revised the Urban Park Act again and introduced the "Private Finance Initiative" System for parks (Park-PFI System). This system selects private enterprises through open recruitment into the construction, operation, and maintenance of park facilities, aiming to enhance their attractiveness and profitability, thereby alleviating the government's fiscal burden. This initiative has significantly increased the investment of private capital in public utilities including the construction and management of public infrastructure^{[29] [30]}.

As time changes, Japan's urban park management system has undergone a transformation from being purely public goods towards encouraging private participation, expanding the scope and depth of PPP. Based on the research by scholars such as Toshiaki Funabiki and Kentaro Iijima^[27][31], this paper summarizes the legislation and institutional reforms that defined the three phases of the evolution of post-war urban park management system (Tab.1). These legislation and institutional changes in different time periods also reflect the key characteristics of each phase. In the first phase, park functions were singular, and park management and funding were entirely dependent on the government's fiscal allotment. In the second phase, private enterprises started to participate into the management and operation of profitable facilities in parks to help make up the management shortfall. In the third phase, private enterprises expanded their participation into public utilities, and the park management system shifted from the government's direct management towards the participation of diverse entities involving social organizations and communities. This evolution not only reflects the changes in Japanese society and economy but also demonstrates the advance of park management concepts.

Tab.1 Development phases of urban park management regime in Japan after World War Ⅱ

Phase	Period of time	System and regulation	Major changes	Purposes
Being purely public goods	1956 ~ 1967	· Urban Park Act	· Establish the law from scratch, requiring that urban parks must comply with the legal provisions in establishment, management, disaster prevention, area occupation, etc.· Reorganize or remove all non-communal facilities according to the legal provisions	· Prevent excessive construction of facilities in urban parks · Transform or demolish illegal facilities
Initiating marketization	1968 ~ 1998	· City Planning Act· Act on Temporary Measures Concerning the Promotion of the Construction of Specific Facilities Through the Participation of Private Enterprises· Urban Park Act (Revised)	· Permit the introduction of recreational, entertainment, sports, and educational facilities into urban parks· Permit to set up shops on the ground and lower floors, or to build urban parks on building roofs· Remove restrictions on the construction area of commercial buildings	· Meet the demands for metropolitan development, as part of the new national overall development plan· Loosen the policies on the construction of park facilities by private enterprises, and promote the participation of private enterprises, NPOs, and individuals into the construction, operation, and maintenance of park facilities to meet regional needs· Entrust specific park facilities projects to private enterprises as much as possible
Diversifying management entities	1999 to present	· Act on Promotion of Private Finance Initiative· Designated Manager System· Park-PFI System· Urban Park Renovation Agreement· Urban Park Act (2nd Revised)	· Loosen the policies on catering, accommodation, etc. facilities· Introduce the legal procedure for open recruitment of private enterprises and operation institutions in management, and allow public groups or individuals to bid· Use the profits from commercial facilities in the improvement of the paths and squares around the facilities· Legalize implementation methods, monitoring, forms of public participation, legal accountability, funding sources, and budget management of park facilities	· Entrust the decision right of fund use to private enterprises· Maintain or improve service quality and reduce costs through the innovation and efforts of private enterprises

The evolution of urban park management system has also brought about significant improvements to urban parks themselves in three aspects. First, parks have gone beyond their initial functions in leisure and disaster prevention for surrounding communities and now become multifunctional urban spaces that provide healthcare, educational, recreational, and cultural opportunities for citizens, playing a more important role in their urban life. Second, the participation of private enterprises and other social entities has not only improved park management efficiency but also strengthened the vitality of the parks. Third, the innovation in management system helped attract private capital and enhance operation profits, effectively relieving the government's financial pressure on public infrastructure and facilitating the sustainable development of urban parks.

3 PPP Modes

3.1 Implementation Forms of PPP Modes

PPP, also known as "public-private relationships, " refers to the cooperation between government departments and private enterprises in public services or infrastructure projects, covering stages of development, construction, management, and operation, in implementation forms of privatization, Private Finance Initiative (PFI), Designated Manager System, selling public assets to private enterprises^[32], etc. (Tab.2).

Tab.2 Implementation forms of PPP modes

Form	Interpretation
Privatization	The restructuring of enterprises operated by the central government or local public entities into regular private companies, or the complete transfer of ownership of public services or facilities to private enterprises, emphasizing a full shift to private ownership without direct management by the government
PFI	Outsourcing the entire process from funding and construction to the management and operation of public services or facilities
Designated Manager System	Outsourcing the management and operation of public services and facilities to private companies, primarily through two models:1) independent financial management of profitable facilities by private enterprises, and 2) government procurement of services
Selling public assets to private enterprises	The process that the government or public sector sells its enterprises, services (e.g., water supply, electric power) or assets (e.g., roads, airports) to private companies or individuals, typically undertaken to increase efficiency, raise revenue or reduce the government's burden, in ways of full privatization, partial sales or outsourcing of services

Guided by such policies, the Designated Manager System and PFI have been widely applied in local urban parks^[23]. The former is more suitable for built-up urban parks, such as the South Ikebukuro Park in Tokyo, and the Tennoji Park and Osaka Castle Park in Osaka^[25]; while the latter is more often adopted for newly built or renewal park facility projects. Among various PFI implementation forms (Tab.3), the BTO (Build-Transfer-Operate) approach is most broadly used, with examples like the Nagai Uminote Park and Yanagishima Sports Park in Kanagawa, and the Futabashi Park in Yokohama^[25][33].

Tab.3 Specific approaches of PFI

Approach	Process	Interpretation
BTO	Build–Transfer–Operate	The construction of a project is funded by the government, and then the operation is transferred to private enterprises
BOT	Build–Operate–Transfer	Private enterprises fund the construction of a project and operate it profitably during a franchising period, and then transfer the operation of the project to the government
BOO	Build–Own–Operate	Private enterprises fund the construction and have the ownership and operation rights during a franchising period
RO	Rehabilitate–Operate	The government licenses existing facilities to private enterprises for renovation and operation while retaining the ownership; private enterprises are responsible for the renovation and later operation and management

3.2 Driving Forces of PPP Modes

For the evolution of Japan's urban park management system, the driving forces were combined products influenced by international situations and domestic economic factors. This paper concludes the main driving forces of the reforms of urban park management system in four aspects: the government's fiscal pressure, neoliberal marketization, decentralization and new public management theories, and changes in public service demands.

1) The government's fiscal pressure was the essential factor to the reform of Japan's urban park management system. Since the 1980s, Japan has faced dual challenges of external economic pressure and domestic fiscal austerity, especially after the bubble economy burst. Against this background, introducing private capital to reduce the government's expenditure on public utilities was imperative, which also forced the government to rethink the way of provisioning public services and to seek more efficient and economical solutions.

2) The rise of neoliberal marketization has had a profound impact on Japan's policy orientation, which emphasized introducing market-based mechanisms into public utilities and services, as important means to improve efficiency and performance^{[21] [22]}. Influenced by such ideas, the government began to explore the possibility of introducing market-based mechanisms into the construction, management, and operation of park facilities in hopes of improving service quality and operation efficiency.

3) Decentralization and the rise of new public management theories provided an institutional basis and theoretical support for the reforms of park management system. Local governments have empowered greater autonomy through decentralization to formulate more localized practical park management policies, encouraging the exploration of more diverse implementation forms of PPP modes.

4) Changes in public service demands are also an important factor to the reforms of park management system. Japanese residents' expectations for public services have continuously upgraded over time, placing increasingly diverse needs and higher demands in the quality, richness, and convenience of public facilities, which are difficult to be met under the traditional government-led park management system. Attracting private capital in the construction, management, and operation of park facilities and using market-based initiatives to meet the public's diversified needs have enriched the types of profitable programs and enhanced residents' experience in urban parks.

3.3 PPP Implementation Mechanisms and Challenges

By reviewing the evolution of urban park management system, this paper believes that the Japanese government has consistently strived to meet the needs of the times, in both policy-making and implementation, and local governments also actively respond to the central government's calls, endeavoring to maximize public interests.

First, the Japanese government adopted phased strategies in different sectors. Starting in the 1980s, the government launched pilot state-owned land transfer and large-scale construction projects. As experience accumulated and performance improved, the PPP modes have gradually employed into broader public utilities, including urban parks. Such a gradual approach not only ensured the stability of policy implementation but also considered the uniqueness in each sector.

Second, the Japanese government has made continuous adjustments and upgrades in urban park management system. From the Management Entrustment System to the Designated Manager System, and then to the Park-PFI System, the government has kept in exploring more flexible and efficient PPP modes. These transitions have made private entities play a greater role in urban park management, effectively motivating the vitality of social resources. At the same time, the government has also attempted to balance and guarantee the interests among all stakeholders via institutional design. By formulating and revising laws and regulations and clearly defining the scope of rights and responsibilities of each party, the government now focuses on balancing public interests and profits while enhancing efficiency, so as to promote the healthy development of PPP modes.

Finally, the Japanese government has always strengthened supervision and guidance on the implementation of PPP modes. On one hand, by establishing mechanisms such as open recruitment and performance assessment, and based on feedback and evaluation systems, the government navigates PPP practices to be beneficial to public interests. On the other hand, the government also emphasizes the diversified development of PPP modes, encouraging communities, NPOs, and other social entities to participate into the construction of public projects, in addition to attracting private capital. In this process, the government acts as a "rule guardian" who formulates fair and inclusive policies to ensure that stakeholders of different backgrounds and types can achieve their goals, thereby maximizing public interests.

Of course, the PPP implementation also faces challenges such as different reality difficulties across regions, and differentiated revenues and service quality. The Japanese government conducted surveys ten years after implementing the Designated Manager System. The survey results showed that about 11% of urban parks had adopted this system; about 50% of local governments had practiced this system in urban parks, with the rate exceeding 70% in cities with populations of over 200,000, but less than 30% in rural areas; for parks that introduced this system, the length of franchising was mostly 3 to 5 years; 72% of local governments selected private enterprises through complete or almost open recruitments^[34]. However, scholars found that private entities' enthusiasm to participate the Park-PFI System was not as high as expected, because the government often unilaterally reduced their own budget without consideration for the private enterprises^[35]. In a survey on whether to renew contracts with recruited private enterprises, 51% of local governments declined while 34.5% would determine upon the enterprise's previous management performance. Another survey revealed that nearly 60% of local officials considered improving efficiency of facility operation (to reduce fiscal expenditure) the primary task of introducing the system, much higher than the goal of improving service quality in open hours, customer service, etc. (28.3%)^[36].

These survey results also reveal the challenges faced by urban parks after introducing PPP modes. First, there are obvious regional differences in PPP practice, which has been more widely applied in large cities with concentrated populations. Second, balancing the interests between the government and private enterprises would impact PPP's long-term stability; if the government simply pursues cost reduction, it may also suppress private enterprises' enthusiasm to participate.

4 The Public Nature Under the Evolution of Urban Park Management System in Japan

4.1 Contradictions of Public Nature

By introducing marketization and participation of private entities in public utilities, local governments in Japan have increased the diversity of management and operation approaches while also alleviating their fiscal pressure. However, on the other hand, the introduction of private capital has also caused a loss of public nature in urban parks. Capital-oriented consumerism has penetrated into public spaces, and the boutique trend of park construction to attract high-class consumers has somehow eroded the public nature of public spaces, raising reflections on how to guarantee the public's rights of the availability to public services^{[36] [37]}. For example, some scholars have pointed out that commercialized park spaces like Miyashita Park^④ in Tokyo exclude certain societal groups, violating parks' basic attributes of being open and inclusive^{[38] [39]}. Participatory design and management in park construction seemingly respect public autonomy, but due to limited participation and issues such as brand outsourcing, they have also led to an imbalance in public rights and interests^{[39] [40]}.

④ Miyashita Park now is located in the prime location of Shibuya, Tokyo. The park was initially built in 1953, and then transformed into Tokyo's first rooftop park in 1966. In 2017, Mitsui Fudosan obtained the final development right for the park reconstruction project, where PPP modes were adopted. Although the reconstructed park is more tidy and clean, the new development has led to a trend of the park's privatization. For commercial reasons, the park's opening hours are limited and some originally legitimate park usage behaviors are also constrained. The government dealt the issue of the homeless in the park with coercive measures, neglecting some legal rights of the vulnerable groups (source: Ref. [38]).

Most non-governmental entities have their own profit goals in the commercialization of public services, which might compromise the accessibility of public spaces or public facilities, indirectly excluding certain societal groups from enjoying the services. The increasing presence of profitable facilities encroaches on public resources such as plazas, roads, and green spaces, turning them into closed spaces that are not universally accessible. Considering that excessive commercialization of parks may undermine the interests of the general public and directly damage the publicness of public services^[41], central and local governments have been highly consistent in dealing with the privatization issues of public spaces in urban parks—this is the primary reason for the rapid implementation of policies at the local level. On the other hand, although the Park-PFI System addressed local governments' fiscal shortage and the economic decline due to population decrease, it has been mostly practiced in major cities like Tokyo and Osaka. Examples like Miyashita Park, South Ikebukuro Park, and Osaka Castle Park are often located in central urban areas, where private enterprises' participation is not necessarily urgent. This suggests that although private enterprises' participation in the management and operation of public facilities has contributed greatly to the improvement of public well-being, it is still deeply influenced by market-based considerations.

4.2 Implication Changes of Public Nature

As the Japanese government increasingly introduces private capital into the construction and operation of public facilities, the implications of public nature has also seen changes. The focus has shifted from the post-war mainstream awareness that merely considered the ownership of public goods, to a new emphasis on the common goals among park managers and users as a community, to maximize public interests. Since parks are scarce spatial resources in cities, more explicit public power and more widely shared public values become the driving forces for the implication updates of public nature. Current policy documents more often turn to elaborate and disseminate the implications of public nature in the following core contexts.

(1) Improving management efficiency and activating local economy

During the staged introduction of PPP System, the Japanese government has continuously strengthened the use of the vitality of private capital, encouraging to improve management efficiency and activate local economy. The increased investment by private enterprises and NPOs in renovation and renewal projects of old public facilities has brought new opportunities to revitalize local economy^{[34] [42]}. For example, the Guidelines on PFI Projects Implementation Process defines that urban parks, in addition to their basic functions of disaster prevention, improving living settlements, conserving biodiversity, and inheriting regional cultures, serve for enhancing urban vitality, bolstering economic growth, attracting enterprises, and creating job opportunities. However, unlike other countries such as China and the USA, the distribution of urban parks in Japan is relatively balanced that does not significantly impact the surroundings' real estate prices^{[43] [44]}; instead, programming urban and regional public activities in parks is encouraged to attract new enterprises and development projects and to create new job opportunities, thereby boosting regional economy and enhancing regional competitiveness^[45].

(2) Meeting new demands of urban residents

Urban parks have gradually constructed sports venues, restaurants, cafes, barbecue areas, nurseries, etc., to meet park users' changing needs. Local residents have also actively participated in formulating rules and agreements for park usage, as well as the operation and maintenance of green spaces within parks, which not only promotes usage efficiency but also increases residents' sense of belonging. To better meet residents' needs, the Japanese government has rolled out a series of policies—for instance, renting park land at below market prices or extending the franchising length up to 20 years—to encourage private capital to invest in the management and maintenance of park facilities from the beginning stages. These policies have not only successfully heartened private investment but also improved park service quality and residents' satisfaction^{[42] [46] [47]}.

(3) Improving quality of life

Parks, as isolated sites scattered throughout the city in the past, have developed into an interconnected green space system that is localized to the city settings. In terms of newly built or renewal projects of green spaces, official documents center on initiatives such as upgrading existing facilities, flexible use of urban parks, integrating with urban life, and enhancing regional attractiveness^[18]. It not only provides citizens with more recreational spaces but also improves the accessibility of parks.

Under the guidance of official documents, the Japanese government has broadened the channels of open and autonomous participation for individuals and enterprises, making the management and operation of urban parks more transparent and efficient. On one hand, it continues to strengthen parks' basic functions as urban infrastructure; on the other hand, it pays more attention to parks' important role in improving urban quality of life, enhancing environmental attractiveness and residents' sense of belonging, and ultimately promoting regional sustainable development through residents' autonomic governance^{[46] [47]}.

5 Conclusions and Implications

As a harbinger state^⑤[48^] in Asia that first entered the world trade system, Japan has proposed a series of policy responding to challenges such as aging population and fiscal crisis earlier than other Asian countries. Its institutional effectiveness and problems can provide reference for other countries. The implications of the evolution of urban park management system in Japan can be summarized as follows.

⑤ Phillip Y. Lipscy, a renowned political scientist, considers Japan a "harbinger state" that has experienced many challenges in the international system ahead of others. Studying Japan can provide relevant references and theoretical insights to important political issues for scholars and decision-makers in other countries or regions (source: Ref. [48]).

First, this process reflects the continuous efforts made by the Japanese government over times to maximize public interests. Shifting from the post-war opposition of publicness versus privateness to private capital participation for a higher efficiency, and further to the community for a greater regional competitiveness, these transitions witnessed in the urban park management system well embody the adjustment of the government's role and the promotion of public-private cooperation, and the cognitive advance about the publicness and privateness. The changes of the government's role—from representing the public power to representing citizens' collective rights—are the essence of this institutional evolution, and underscore public participation as a key path for right guarantee in urban infrastructure management.

Second, the centralization and decentralization of management power is jointly influenced by the composition of participant groups, the disposition modes of the right of use, and the changes of the society's power consciousness. During the reforms of urban park management system, the Japanese government has also actively promoted the updates of the implications of public nature, playing a key role in shaping and guiding the changes of people's awareness about public rights regarding fairness, spatial justice, and landscape justice. Through the unceasing promotion of core concepts such as shared values, broad participation, and balance of power, and the enhancement of sustainable development and regional influence, the connotation and scope of the implications of public nature have been augmented.

Finally, although Japan has made great efforts in addressing issues such as maintaining the operation of public infrastructure under population decline and fiscal austerity, how to effectively balance and guide the value orientation of public spaces remains a challenge. The public nature deterioration of spaces and the imbalance between service attributes and public interests may lead to contradictions including disintegration of public nature, marginalization of vulnerable groups, and exacerbation of regional disparity in public services. This paper believes that in the processes of balancing service attributes with public interests and promoting public-private cooperation, the government should go beyond simply reducing deficits and pursuing profits and focus on long-term goals of public facility services—in other words, to enhance the participation of regional services and promote the sustainable development while strengthening residents' sense of belonging. Besides, it should pay attention to the equilibrium of public services to narrow the regional disparities caused by the excessive dependence on market-based mechanisms. In addition, it should establish new mechanisms for public participation and open supervision to ensure the decision-making rights of general public concerning public interests.

References

[1] Saito, J. (2000). Publicness. Iwanami Shoten.

[2] Waldo, D. (2017). The Administrative State: A Study of the Political Theory of American Public Administration (C. Yan, Trans.). Central Compilation & Translation Press.

[3] Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2010). The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering (H. Ding, Trans.). China Renmin University Press.

[4] Zhang, Y. (2020). Research on the Public Value of Government Procurement of Public Services. China Social Sciences Press.

[5] Weisbrod, B. A. (1977). The Voluntary Nonprofit Sector: An Economic Analysis. Lexington Books.

[6] Rouzet, D. , Sánchez, , A., C. , Renault, T. , & Roehn, O. (2019) Fiscal challenges and inclusive growth in ageing societies. OECD Economic Policy Papers, ( 27), 1– 69.

[7] Seta, F. (2013) A discussion on the comprehensiveness of urban planning master plan in the phase of depopulation: Through a case study on elimination, consolidation and rearrangement of public service facilities. Journal of the City Planning Institute of Japan, 48 ( 3), 609– 614.

[8] Jian, Y. , Luo, J. , Wang, A. , Chen, H. , Chen, W. , & Shao, J. (2023) The interplay between privately-owned public space and spatial justice: The case of Hong Kong. Urban Planning International, 38 ( 3), 73– 82.

[9] Li, H. (2018) The lost and awaken of public nature: Street community renewal based on space justice. Planners, 34 ( 2), 25– 30.

[10] Yan, J. (2020) Urban public space planning path towards spatial justice. Journal of Soochow University (Philosophy & Social Science Edition), 41 ( 6), 23– 30.

[11] Ye, L. , Xing, Z. , Yan, W. , Xiang, Y. , & He, L. (2018) Urban greenspace planning to achieve social justice. Urban Planning Forum, ( 3), 57– 64.

[12] Yang, L. , & Yang, P. (2020) Urban parks from the perspective of spatial justice: Reflection, revision and research framework. Urban Development Studies, 27 ( 2), 38– 45.

[13] Han, Y. , & Dai, F. (2018) Review of study on ecosystem services function of urban green spaces: Indicators, methods and assessment framework. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 34 ( 10), 55– 60.

[14] Nojima, M. (1994) The evolution of the modern city park in the period of Tokyo City planning. Journal of the City Planning Institute of Japan Papers on City Planning, ( 29), 223– 228.

[15] Shirahata, Y. (1995). Genealogy of Europeanization in Urban Parks. In: A Study on the History of Modern Urban Parks: The Genealogy of Europeanization. Shibunkaku Publishing.

[16] Xu, X. , Akita, N. , & Zang, T. (2022) A study of the history of the birth and development of Hibiya Park in Tokyo and the transformation of spatial awareness. Landscape Architecture Academic Journal, 39 ( 9), 83– 88.

[17] Kurihara, Y. , Okazaki, A. , & Tanaka, Y. (2022) Architectural characteristics and management of traditional Japanese restaurants. Reports of the City Planning Institute of Japan, ( 21), 243– 250.

[18] Xu, X. , Akita, N. , & Li, Z. (2022) The role and sustainable development of historic urban parks in Japan—Taking Tokyo Hibiya Park as an example. Landscape Architecture Academic Journal,, 39 ( 1), 50– 55.

[19] Moriwaki, T. (1949) Publicness of urban parks. Journal of the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architects, 13 ( 1), 30– 32.

[20] Liu, H. (2021) Developing a technological approach toward the public space design for creating urban asset and market driven operation. New Architecture, ( 4), 4– 10.

[21] Wright, D. S. , & Sakurai, Y. (1987) Administrative reform in Japan: Politics, policy, and public administration in a deliberative society. Public Administration Review, 47 ( 2), 121– 133.

[22] Kurokawa, K. (2000) Devolution & new city planning system. The Japanese Journal of Real Estate Sciences, 14 ( 3), 7– 10.

[23] Nobata, S. , & Hisano, T. (2009) A study of city park management by designated manager system—Meaning of partnership among stake-holders. Journal of Policy Studies, ( 33), 39– 71.

[24] Yamamoto, H. (2003). New public management—Japan's practice. Institute for International Policy Studies.

[25] Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan. (2019). Selection and survey of public-private partnership cases.

[26] Shiomi, I. (2021). Research on the role of urban parks in overcoming population decline [Doctoral dissertation]. Muroran Institute of Technology.

[27] Funabiki, T. (2016) The study of development and structure of the private sector participation system in city park. Papers on Environmental Information Science, ( 30), 213– 218.

[28] Kaneko, C. (2010) Current status and issues of urban park management by designated managers based on the results of a questionnaire on the "designated manager system in urban parks". Parks and Open Space, 71 ( 4), 7– 9.

[29] Tsuchiya, T. (2021, November 22). Possibilities for enhancing the attractiveness of "comprehensive forest use facilities" through public-private partnerships.

[30] Katagiri, Y. (2017) Amendment of the urban parks act and prospects for introducing PPP (public-private partnership) to urban parks. NRI Public Management Review, ( 170), 1– 9.

[31] Iijima, K. (2018) Management in an urban park and public private partnership. Journal of Japanese Society of Turfgrass Science, 47 ( 1), 1– 6.

[32] Parks and Landscape Division, City Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan. (2020, October 7). Guidelines for promoting urban park renovation integrated with community development.

[33] Cabinet Office, Government of Japan. (2020). PPP/PFI case studies.

[34] Naaoyuki, S. (2021, February 25). Promotion of public-private partnerships in urban parks. Parks and Landscape Division, City Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan.

[35] Nomura, W. (2018) Recent trends in Park-PFI. Shintoshi, 72 ( 11), 10– 13.

[36] Yokoyama, D. (2022) Study on development of public private partnerships for urban development with focus on introduction of Park-PFI—Through efforts of government, urban renewal corporation and others in Honmachi Park, Wakayama City. Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Ser. D3 (Infrastructure Planning and Management), 78 ( 1), 13– 23.

[37] Hashimoto, K. (2015) Growing underclass and emergence of the new class society. Trends in the Sciences, 20 ( 9), 44– 49.

[38] Igarashi, T. (2022). Exclusion Art for Whom? Intolerance and Self-Responsibility Theory. Iwanami Shoten.

[39] Chikamori, T. (2021, June 7). "Miyashita park" and "park community development": On the "difficulty of narrating" urban parks in recent years. Mita-hyoron.

[40] Kubota, A. (2021) Rethinking the park in the city case study: Transformation of Miyashita Park in downtown Shibuya, Tokyo. Journal of Architecture and Planning, 86 ( 781), 1001– 1011.

[41] Park, B. , Iida, A. , & Yokohari, M. (2017) A study on publicness and profitability of public-private partnerships in urban parks—A case study of Toyosuna Park in Chiba, Japan. Reports of the City Planning Institute of Japan, ( 16), 182– 187.

[42] Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan. (2014, April 1). Guidelines for enhancing the attractiveness of urban parks through public-private partnerships.

[43] Hidano, N. (2015). Impact of parks and views on real estate prices. Tokyo Association of Real Estate Appraisers.

[44] ARUHI Magazine Editorial Department. (2021, August 24). Relationship between park distance and house price? AI analyzes housing prices near large parks in Tokyo. ARUHI.

[45] Parks and Landscape Division, City Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan. (2018, August 10). Guidelines for utilizing Park-PFI to improve the quality of urban parks.

[46] Minoshima, T., Akita, N., Sakai, A., Sato, R., Denguchi, A., Nagino, Y., Wakui, S., Negoro, C., Hirose, J., & Akutsu, M. (2022, October 31). New era of urban parks. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan.

[47] Machida, M. (2018) Public-private partnerships in urban green spaces. Shinrin Kannkyou, ( 2018), 168– 179.

[48] Lipscy, P. Y. (2023) Japan: The harbinger state. Japanese Journal of Political Science, ( 24), 80– 97.

Acknowledgements

Post-Doctoral Fellow Project of "A Comparative Study on the Evolution of Metropolises in China and Japan, " China Scholarship Council (No. 202308430114)

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

© Higher Education Press 2024