Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Landscape Architecture Frontiers

ISSN 2096-336X

ISSN 2095-5413 (Online)

CN 10-1105/TU

Postal Subscription Code 80-985

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Landsc. Archit. Front.    2024, Vol. 12 Issue (4) : 8-18    https://doi.org/10.15302/J-LAF-1-020102
The Implications of Population Decline and Fiscal Austerity on Public Nature: Insights From the Evolution of Urban Park Management System in Japan
Xizi XU(), Fumihiko SETA2, Noriko AKITA3, Kai ZHOU4
1. School of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Hunan University of Technology, Zhuzhou 412000, China
2. Department of Urban Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-8654, Japan
3. Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University, Chiba 271-8510, Japan
4. Department of Urban and Rural Planning, School of Architecture and Planning, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
 Download: PDF(1242 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
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

Keywords Publicness      Landscape Justice      Public-Private Partnership      "Private Finance Initiative" System for Parks      Urban Parks      Management System      Urban Infrastructure     
Corresponding Author(s): Xizi XU   
Issue Date: 30 August 2024
 Cite this article:   
Xizi XU,Fumihiko SETA,Noriko AKITA, et al. The Implications of Population Decline and Fiscal Austerity on Public Nature: Insights From the Evolution of Urban Park Management System in Japan[J]. Landsc. Archit. Front., 2024, 12(4): 8-18.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/laf/EN/10.15302/J-LAF-1-020102
https://academic.hep.com.cn/laf/EN/Y2024/V12/I4/8
PhasePeriod of timeSystem and regulationMajor changesPurposes
Being purely public goods1956 ~ 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 marketization1968 ~ 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 entities1999 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
Tab.1  Development phases of urban park management regime in Japan after World War Ⅱ
FormInterpretation
PrivatizationThe 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
PFIOutsourcing the entire process from funding and construction to the management and operation of public services or facilities
Designated Manager SystemOutsourcing 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 enterprisesThe 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
Tab.2  Implementation forms of PPP modes
ApproachProcessInterpretation
BTOBuild–Transfer–OperateThe construction of a project is funded by the government, and then the operation is transferred to private enterprises
BOTBuild–Operate–TransferPrivate 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
BOOBuild–Own–OperatePrivate enterprises fund the construction and have the ownership and operation rights during a franchising period
RORehabilitate–OperateThe 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
Tab.3  Specific approaches of PFI
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 D., Rouzet , , Sánchez , C., A. , T., Renault , & O., Roehn (2019) Fiscal challenges and inclusive growth in ageing societies. OECD Economic Policy Papers, ( 27), 1– 69.
7 F., Seta (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.
https://doi.org/10.11361/journalcpij.48.609
8 Y., Jian , J., Luo , A., Wang , H., Chen , W., Chen , & J., Shao (2023) The interplay between privately-owned public space and spatial justice: The case of Hong Kong. Urban Planning International, 38 ( 3), 73– 82.
9 H., Li (2018) The lost and awaken of public nature: Street community renewal based on space justice. Planners, 34 ( 2), 25– 30.
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-0022.2018.02.004
10 J., Yan (2020) Urban public space planning path towards spatial justice. Journal of Soochow University (Philosophy & Social Science Edition), 41 ( 6), 23– 30.
11 L., Ye , Z., Xing , W., Yan , Y., Xiang , & L., He (2018) Urban greenspace planning to achieve social justice. Urban Planning Forum, ( 3), 57– 64.
12 L., Yang , & P., Yang (2020) Urban parks from the perspective of spatial justice: Reflection, revision and research framework. Urban Development Studies, 27 ( 2), 38– 45.
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-3862.2020.02.006
13 Y., Han , & F., Dai (2018) Review of study on ecosystem services function of urban green spaces: Indicators, methods and assessment framework. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 34 ( 10), 55– 60.
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-6664.2018.10.014
14 M., Nojima (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 X., Xu , N., Akita , & T., Zang (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 Y., Kurihara , A., Okazaki , & Y., Tanaka (2022) Architectural characteristics and management of traditional Japanese restaurants. Reports of the City Planning Institute of Japan, ( 21), 243– 250.
18 X., Xu , N., Akita , & Z., Li (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 T., Moriwaki (1949) Publicness of urban parks. Journal of the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architects, 13 ( 1), 30– 32.
20 H., Liu (2021) Developing a technological approach toward the public space design for creating urban asset and market driven operation. New Architecture, ( 4), 4– 10.
21 D. S., Wright , & Y., Sakurai (1987) Administrative reform in Japan: Politics, policy, and public administration in a deliberative society. Public Administration Review, 47 ( 2), 121– 133.
22 K., Kurokawa (2000) Devolution & new city planning system. The Japanese Journal of Real Estate Sciences, 14 ( 3), 7– 10.
23 S., Nobata , & T., Hisano (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 T., Funabiki (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 C., Kaneko (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 Y., Katagiri (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 K., Iijima (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 W., Nomura (2018) Recent trends in Park-PFI. Shintoshi, 72 ( 11), 10– 13.
36 D., Yokoyama (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 K., Hashimoto (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 A., Kubota (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 B., Park , A., Iida , & M., Yokohari (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 M., Machida (2018) Public-private partnerships in urban green spaces. Shinrin Kannkyou, ( 2018), 168– 179.
48 P. Y., Lipscy (2023) Japan: The harbinger state. Japanese Journal of Political Science, ( 24), 80– 97.
[1] Kaiyi ZHU, Tianyi GU. Bringing Systematic Thinking of Landscape Justice Into Global Design Practice[J]. Landsc. Archit. Front., 2024, 12(4): 78-92.
[2] Ziwei ZHANG. Land Grab and Land Grant: Contextualizing Landscape Justice in Social Forestry in Indonesia[J]. Landsc. Archit. Front., 2024, 12(4): 46-56.
[3] Kai ZHOU, Bin CHEN. Envisioning Landscape Justice: Interdisciplinary Dialogue, Collaboration, and Exploration[J]. Landsc. Archit. Front., 2024, 12(4): 4-7.
[4] JIANG Qianzi, WANG Guangxing, LIANG Xueyuan, LIU Na. Research on the Perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Urban Parks via Analyses of Online Comment Data[J]. Landsc. Archit. Front., 2022, 10(5): 32-51.
[5] ZHOU Zhaosen, LIN Guangsi. Research on the Influencing Factors of Users’ Perception of the Inclusiveness of Urban Parks Based on the Grounded Theory[J]. Landsc. Archit. Front., 2022, 10(3): 12-37.
[6] Yumin YE. Exploration on Strengthening City Competitiveness and Improving Urban Governance in the Age of Ecological Civilization[J]. Landsc. Archit. Front., 2018, 6(6): 36-43.
[7] Qingping ZHU. Thoughts on Synergetic Development of Watershed Management and Regional Economy[J]. Landsc. Archit. Front., 2018, 6(6): 62-65.
[8] Mariana VALVERDE, Alexandra FLNN. “MORE BUZZWORDS THAN ANSWERS” — TO SIDEWALK LABS IN TORONTO[J]. Landsc. Archit. Front., 2018, 6(2): 115-123.
[9] Creative Commons Korea. Sharing City Seoul: Solving social and urban issues through sharing[J]. Landsc. Archit. Front., 2017, 5(3): 52-59.
[10] University of Arkansas Community Design Center. Fayetteville 2030: Food City Scenario[J]. Landsc. Archit. Front., 2016, 4(1): 94-111.
[11] Keiichiro SAKO. A Half “Beijinger”[J]. Landsc Archit Front, 2013, 1(5): 124-129.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed