Objective With the rapid advancement of urbanization and the growing public demand for accessible, high-quality green spaces, urban parks have become critical components of urban ecological infrastructure, social equity, and cultural identity. However, financial sustainability remains a persistent and widespread challenge in park operations worldwide. While parks are expected to fulfill ecological, recreational, and social functions, they often face budgetary constraints, limited revenue channels, and growing public expectations. Against this backdrop, this research aims to conduct a systematic comparative analysis of urban parks in China and the United States, focusing on their revenue structures, expenditure patterns, and governance models. The objective is to identify key operational differences and propose practical optimization strategies that can support more diversified and resilient park management in China.

Methods This research adopts a mixed-methods approach that integrates quantitative financial analysis with institutional and policy comparison. A total of 23 representative urban parks are selected for analysis, including 19 parks from four major Chinese cities — Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Chengdu — and 4 U.S. cases: Bryant Park, the High Line, Central Park, and Miami Beach Park System, which encompasses 43 sub-parks. Data are derived from publicly available financial reports, budget documents, and official park websites from 2020 to 2023. Revenue streams are categorized into government appropriations, service income (e.g., ticketing), commercial revenue, private donations, and investment returns. Expenditures are classified into expenditures for sanitation and maintenance, cultural heritage protection, infrastructure upgrades, and programmatic activities. To ensure comparability across varying park sizes and administrative models, financial indicators are normalized using per-square-meter values and proportional allocations. The governance structures are also examined to distinguish between public-sector-dominant models and hybrid public − nonprofit partnerships. Based on the above, a comprehensive dataset is formed, which allows for multi-dimensional comparisons and the identification of systemic differences between Chinese and American park operations.

Results The findings reveal three significant differences between the two countries in terms of operational structure and financial resilience of parks. 1) Chinese urban parks are predominantly reliant on government appropriations, which account for 60% − 90% of total revenue. Since these parks generate limited service income through ticketing and venue rental, their commercial revenue remains minimal. In contrast, U.S. parks demonstrate highly diversified income streams. For example, over 75% of Bryant Park’s revenue comes from commercial activities such as seasonal markets, concessions, and events, while Central Park and the High Line derive up to 90% of their revenue from private donations and long-term investment returns, showcasing a more market-oriented and autonomous financial model. 2) Expenditure priorities: In China, park spending is mainly directed toward basic urban services, especially sanitation and infrastructure maintenance, with limited budget allocated to cultural programming, community engagement, or visitor services. Conversely, U.S. parks allocate significant portions of their budgets to experiential services and cultural programming. The High Line, for instance, invests more than 30% of its annual expenditure in arts, education, and visitor engagement, reinforcing its role as a multifunctional public space. 3) All the 19 Chinese parks operate as publicly administered Category II nonprofit institutions, with limited managerial autonomy and constrained capacity for external fundraising. In contrast, several leading U.S. parks are managed through collaborative governance models involving nonprofit organizations such as the Central Park Conservancy and Friends of the High Line. These organizations play a pivotal role in fundraising, volunteer coordination, and program development. The Miami Beach Park System represents a more traditional, tax-funded model, with limited civic or private-sector engagement, relying primarily on local government revenue and property taxes.

Conclusion While Chinese urban parks benefit from stable fiscal support and strong public-service orientation, they face challenges related to limited revenue diversity, insufficient market integration, and low financial resilience. In response, this research proposes four optimization pathways: 1) Establish a compensation system for ecological resource occupation, whereby offset funds are directed into dedicated park funds to support ecological restoration, facility maintenance, and public service enhancement; 2) introduce concession-based financing models, in line with the Administrative Measures for Franchise in Infrastructure and Public Utilities, to enable private sector participation in non-core park operations while safeguarding public interests; 3) promote a differentiated governance approach based on park typology; historical and ecologically sensitive parks should remain government-led, while comprehensive urban parks can explore hybrid governance models that combine public oversight with private sector expertise; 4) encourage the establishment of reinvestment mechanisms, and leverage tools such as green bonds or social impact investments to channel surplus funds into long-term development and systemic risk mitigation. By drawing from international best practices and aligning with China’s evolving urban green governance agenda, these strategies can help transition Chinese urban parks from subsidy-dependent units toward diversified, resilient, and sustainable public space systems.