Green space leaders must make an economic case for parks to move them up the political agenda, senior staff have been warned. Not even high-scoring satisfaction surveys will stop parks becoming soft targets when the budget axe swings.

Professor John Crompton told the CABE Space leaders programme: "You have to put what you are doing in economic terms because politicians put pound values on what you do. When we talk about social merit, politicians will always say, 'yes, but we can't afford it'. We have to make an economic case to get to the table."

Crompton, distinguished professor, Texas A&M University, and author of several books on financing and marketing parks, added: "Provision of leisure for its own sake lacks political clout. It needs to show more tangible and economically definable returns such as job creation. On its own, it is too flippant."

He told the 90 leaders programme delegates, from project managers to parks development officers, that leaders must move the debate from parks being "nice" to "essential for economic development". Scoring 95 per cent on satisfaction surveys did not stop budget cuts because "you are not seen as important, and if you're not important you are nowhere".

Crompton, whose speech in February headlined the four-day programme in Leeds, asked delegates from Edinburgh to Newton Abbot where their authority was on a scale of one to five. Local authorities, he insisted, had gone through five stages of development. The higher you came, the further up the political agenda you went.

1. Activity and custodial focus is the most basic model of green space provision, with authorities paying to produce parks and playgrounds. "Nobody is really concerned if anybody uses the facilities or not, but they form part of the infrastructure: if people still visit, that's great, but if they stay away, you've done your duty."

2. Promotion and selling focus became prominent in the 1970s when the growing culture of competition pitched parks against other services. "Suddenly, we had to sell our stuff and justify ourselves with how much revenue our services made and how many people visited. It was a whole new world and we had to be salesmen."

3. User-benefits focus moves from promotion to benefits - "satisfied users are the inventory that gets things done". But only users of a specific service benefit, not taxpayers as a whole. "Bert and Ethel won't use the park but you need their support politically. Green space programmes must perform a necessary community service."

4. Community-benefits focus shifts the model's emphasis from individual users to the community. It echoes the thinking of parks of the 19th century, built to foster good health and social cohesion. Examples like Regent's Park and Birkenhead Park, financed by the sell-off of nearby land for houses, fostered wider community benefits.

5. Repositioning - "the big idea here is that funds are invested in solutions to a community's most pressing problems. The term investment suggests a positive, forward- looking agenda with a return on what you are spending. Where are you in your authority? At the apex you are focusing on the problems of your community."

A subtle shift in mindset was needed, said Crompton, to avoid "marketing myopia", a term coined by the iconic Harvard dean Ted Levitt in the 1960s. "People don't buy products and services; they buy what the products and services do for them. If you as green space leaders think only of products and services, you are myopic," Crompton explained.

And change had to be cultural, as finances were likely to be static: "You have to recognise the pie is the same size. If you are dreaming of more money, keep on dreaming. You must make the case for a bigger slice of the pie. This is not a financial issue, it's political. But there are no great cities in this world without great parks."

John Crompton, a native of Liverpool, has been a professor at Texas A&M University for 35 years and did the first MSc in recreation management in 1969

HOW TO ... GET YOUR MESSAGE ACROSS

Social networking sites such as Facebook and blogs form a new frontier of e-communications that green space leaders should tap into to influence decision makers.

Mark Glover, a councillor and public affairs expert, said leaders should take advantage of the immediacy of online channels to increase the profile and frequency of parks-related news.

"Use blogs to tell people what you are doing in the park for a week. Does your park have a place on Facebook and are your friends aware of it? Above all, ensure the council website has a big section on parks and keep it updated."

Glover, who has led high-profile publicity pushes such as Greening the Games for the 2012 London Olympics, said 15 per cent of revenue budgets were often set aside to inform the public about upcoming plans.

"So 15 per cent of your time should be spent talking to people to get decisions in your favour. Good communications are essential and can save you time dealing with the consequences of a bad decision made later."

Parks staff should also cultivate more traditional channels of communication such as newspaper journalists and local authority PRs and press officers. But objectives had to be clearly stated, jargon-free and easy to understand, he warned.

Terms like "quality standards" and "customer satisfaction" were meaningless. Hard targets like increasing Green Flag Awards from five to 10 or upping the number of users of a bowling green by 100 were the currencies of good communication.

"It will be much easier for others to buy in to these kinds of goals because they are clear. It is easier to communicate media-friendly outcomes that you want to achieve than nitty-gritty objectives when talking to the press. And you need to make sure your PR department supports the projects you want supported. Speak to someone about how to promote an issue over the next year. Sometimes PR departments are too carried away with the council agenda.

"If parks are not on that agenda, they will not get noticed. If your PR department says it hasn't the time, draft a press release. Too often, local authorities are seen to focus on things like rubbish collection - but people like parks, so make sure your press officers do something to get that message out there."

Mark Glover is a London councillor, founder of Bellenden Public Affairs and secretary of the All-Party Parliamentary Gardening & Horticulture Group

MAKING THE INVISIBLE VISIBLE

Anyone who has visited a garden centre knows how much trees, shrubs, paving and other landscape features cost. But new research from CABE Space warns park professionals to brace themselves for a shock.

Most councils value public parks at just £1 each; even the largest, most spectacular park with beautiful mature trees, well-established shrubs, paths, benches and the good old bandstand is valued on a council's list of assets at just £1.

This amazing valuation, the result of an accounting anomaly, effectively makes parks financially invisible and leads to repeated under-investment, says CABE Space.

CABE Space director Sarah Gaventa says: "We have created a framework for how you can assess the value of your park. Often local authorities think of parks as worth only £1. But our studies have shown Highbury Fields in Islington to be worth £53m. And Sefton Park in Liverpool was valued at £108m. You are managing one of the biggest single-value assets of your local authority and you need to make that clear. We must look at the value of trees, seats and buildings."

The report, Making the invisible visible: the real value of park assets, insists that traditional accounting methods like historic cost accounting and depreciation are not good enough. Far from depreciating, a sapling is worth thousands of pounds when mature.

The report proposes that asset value should not be the only consideration when making investment decisions. CABE Space proposes a simple mechanism for reflecting "important yet difficult-to-pin-down benefits". These include looking at the economic value to homeowners, business and individuals and a host of green factors like air quality. Park use - the number of visits to a park - is an important indicator of the wider value of a green space to communities.

The payback is big; failure to act could be bigger. Without this information it is harder for park managers to think strategically and plan future expenditure. Well-evidenced arguments for funds can help negotiations in an age of ever-tightening budgets.

And homing in on the real value of parks has a professional dimension, says Gaventa. "It makes a stronger case for you as a leader. If you are going manage an asset worth £108m then surely somebody should be valuing you as a key player."

For the full report visit www.cabe.org.uk/publications.