Objective The research investigates the systemic transformation of urban park green space management and operation in China from the dual perspectives of public goods provision and fiscal sustainability. Against the backdrop of shifting urbanization paradigms and tightening fiscal constraints, the research seeks to deconstruct the historical evolution of park governance mechanisms across three developmental phases — from the planned economy era to market-driven reforms and contemporary fiscal dependency — while addressing the structural contradictions between public welfare imperatives and financial viability. By integrating theoretical frameworks of quasi-public goods with fiscal challenges, the research aims to propose institutional pathways for sustainable park governance aligned with China’s high-quality development agenda, emphasizing ecological preservation, social equity, and economic resilience.

Methods The research employs an integrated analytical framework to systematically investigate the dynamic interplay between urbanization processes, fiscal capacities, and park governance mechanisms, with a focus on supply-demand evolution across historical phases. By staging China’s urban development into three critical eras — pre-reform era, market transition era, and land-finance dominance era — the research traces how shifting spatial production modes reconfigures park management paradigms. The research adopts a multi-dimensional analytical approach, combining historical – institutional analysis on the evolution of urban park green spaces, paying attention to the logic and backgrounds of policy-making, as well as relevant policies and regulations across different historical periods, and examining the evolutionary process of policy adjustments and their interplay with shifting societal demands about urban park green space.

Results The research delineates the systemic challenges driving the imperative for park governance reform, framed within three transformation shifts. First, the transition from high-speed growth to high-quality development redefines park objectives, prioritizing service equity over quantitative metrics, while confronting the inherent tension between ecological optimization and rigid regulatory constraints. Second, the shift from incremental expansion to stock-oriented urban renewal exposes the fiscal vulnerability of growth driven by land finance, which previously enabled rapid park green space expansion, making local governance burdened by high maintenance costs and hidden liabilities. Third, the transition from investment-led to consumption-driven growth repositions parks as catalysts for urban vitality, yet existing policies inadequately harness their potential for commercial synergy or public health dividends. On the supply side, fiscal austerity and debt containment policies severely constrain traditional funding channels. The tax-sharing reform initiated in the mid-1990s and the subsequent emergence of China’s land finance policies fundamentally reshaped local fiscal priorities, driving a strategic prioritized productive infrastructure over public services. However, recently rising public expectations for equalization of basic public services, are getting a higher priority for local government. Fiscal expenditures dedicated to urban park green spaces will likely to be squeezed in the future. At the same time, driven by the requirements for high-quality development, the ecological and recreational quality of urban park green spaces must be continuously enhanced, which leads to a paradox: Parks are increasingly vital for urban resilience but remain fiscally marginalized. The research identifies critical insights into the systemic transformation of urban park operation and management, centered on four pivotal dimensions outlined in the research’s reform framework. The transition from government – dominated supply models to multi-agent governance emerges as both a necessity and a challenge. While historical reliance on state control ensured public service provision, it also entrenched inefficiency and fiscal dependency. Case analyses reveal that experiments involving nonprofit and private sectors — such as New York’s Bryant Park BID — demonstrate potential for cost efficiency and innovation. It is neither realistic nor scientifically sound to expect the government to assume “unlimited liability” in the provision of public services such as urban parks and green spaces. The government should not be the sole provider. Expectations of governmental responsibility for delivering park-related public goods must be moderated. As evidenced by the supply of public services in education, healthcare, and housing — where social capital and market-driven mechanisms have played critical, even central roles — there is significant instructive value for redefining the composition of supply entities in park green space provision. The research also raises the perspective that the sustainable financial model for park green spaces is important. Considering that the current project-based investment model for public infrastructure often creates conflicts between short-term incentives and sustainability goals, the life-cycle financial assessment framework must be taken as the foundation of the financial model. Meanwhile, plenty income and cash flow is fatal to build up the financial cycle of park operation, which may entail the the adjustment of laws and regulations, improvement of leasable assets and regeneration of park-side urban areas. Then, the reforms on local tax system and innovative financing mechanisms should also be taken as primarily goals of reformation.

Conclusion The research concludes that China’s urban park green space governance necessitates paradigm shifts across governance, financial, policy, and evaluative dimensions. Transitioning from state supply to multi-supply operation, involving nonprofit organizations and social enterprises could enhance efficiency and equity. Financial model innovation should integrate land value capture taxes, ecological asset securitization, and controlled commercial leasing, particularly for high-value urban core parks. Modernizing policy frameworks to accommodate regional disparities and allowing selective revenue-generation strategies may balance ecological mandates with fiscal realities. Crucially, replacing output-based metrics with outcome-oriented indicators measuring health impacts and social cohesion could realign incentives with public value creation. Ultimately, reimagining parks as economic value engine — rather than fiscal liabilities — requires institutionalizing synergies between ecological preservation, economic vitality, and participatory governance, positioning green spaces as a foundation for sustainable urbanization and Chinese-type modernization.