The most underserved Asia-Pacific cities for soft play (2026)

Name: Most Underserved Asia-Pacific Cities for Soft Play 2026
Creator: GetSoftPlay

Which Asia-Pacific markets have the most children per existing indoor playground? We ranked 79 cities across 24 countries by demand gap — the ratio of children in each catchment to the play venues already serving them. This is the Asia-Pacific cut of our Global Soft Play Opportunity Index.

countries

cities ranked

1,279

venues counted

4.67×

top demand gap

Key finding: The most underserved Asia-Pacific city for indoor playgrounds in 2026 is Khulna, Bangladesh (4.67× demand gap), followed by Pokhara (2.52×) and Karachi (1.59×). Across Asia-Pacific, an estimated 9,236,000 children in these catchments are served by just 1,279 venues.

Asia-Pacific cities ranked by demand gap

#	City	Country	Demand gap	Children / venue	Venues
1	Khulna	Bangladesh	4.67×	42,000	3
2	Pokhara	Nepal	2.52×	20,160	5
3	Karachi	Pakistan	1.59×	14,316	19
4	Samarkand	Uzbekistan	1.5×	12,000	9
5	Ganja	Azerbaijan	1.5×	12,000	6
6	Kathmandu	Nepal	1.46×	11,667	12
7	Dhaka	Bangladesh	1.33×	12,000	20
8	Lahore	Pakistan	1.32×	11,900	20
9	Faisalabad	Pakistan	1.31×	11,787	15
10	Manila	Philippines	1.3×	11,667	18
11	Bishkek	Kyrgyzstan	1.28×	10,254	13
12	Mumbai	India	1.22×	10,947	19
13	Chittagong	Bangladesh	1.18×	10,588	17
14	Hanoi	Vietnam	1.17×	9,344	16
15	Delhi	India	1.16×	10,400	20
16	Osh	Kyrgyzstan	1.16×	9,300	10
17	Tashkent	Uzbekistan	1.15×	9,176	17
18	Yangon	Myanmar	1.15×	9,176	17
19	Siem Reap	Cambodia	1.14×	9,100	8
20	Bangalore	India	1.12×	10,111	18
21	Ho Chi Minh City	Vietnam	1.12×	8,944	18
22	Cebu	Philippines	1.11×	10,000	15
23	Davao	Philippines	1.07×	9,643	14
24	Shymkent	Kazakhstan	1.07×	8,600	14
25	Mandalay	Myanmar	1.07×	8,543	14

Asia-Pacific countries ranked

#	Country	Median gap	Cities	Top city
1	Nepal	1.99×	2	Pokhara (2.52×)
2	Bangladesh	1.33×	3	Khulna (4.67×)
3	Uzbekistan	1.33×	2	Samarkand (1.5×)
4	Pakistan	1.32×	4	Karachi (1.59×)
5	Azerbaijan	1.25×	2	Ganja (1.5×)
6	Kyrgyzstan	1.22×	2	Bishkek (1.28×)
7	Myanmar	1.11×	2	Yangon (1.15×)
8	Philippines	1.09×	4	Manila (1.3×)
9	Vietnam	1.09×	4	Hanoi (1.17×)
10	Cambodia	1.07×	2	Siem Reap (1.14×)
11	India	1.06×	6	Mumbai (1.22×)
12	Kazakhstan	1.01×	3	Shymkent (1.07×)
13	Sri Lanka	0.84×	2	Colombo (0.91×)
14	Indonesia	0.81×	4	Jakarta (1.04×)
15	Malaysia	0.81×	4	Kuala Lumpur (0.93×)
16	Thailand	0.68×	4	Bangkok (0.98×)
17	Japan	0.62×	5	Tokyo (0.75×)
18	Australia	0.59×	6	Melbourne (0.78×)
19	Taiwan	0.58×	3	Taipei (0.7×)
20	New Zealand	0.56×	3	Auckland (0.74×)
21	Georgia	0.48×	2	Tbilisi (0.59×)
22	Singapore	0.45×	4	Central Singapore (0.49×)
23	South Korea	0.38×	4	Seoul (0.61×)
24	Hong Kong	0.37×	2	Kowloon (0.38×)

How we measured demand

For each city we estimate children in the central catchment from metro population and national child-population shares, then count indoor play venues within a fixed radius via Google Places. Children ÷ venues gives children per venue; comparing to a regional benchmark gives the demand gap (above 1.0× = underserved). Full methodology and the worldwide ranking are in the Global Soft Play Opportunity Index 2026. Figures are planning estimates, not forecasts (2026-09). If you reference these findings, please credit GetSoftPlay with a link.

the UK Europe North America Latin America the Middle East Africa

Spotted a gap in Asia-Pacific?

Get real manufacturer pricing for a soft play fit-out — free and no obligation.

Explore markets & get a quote →