In this paper, the Banff and Calgary studies will be contrasted on the basis of six characteristics: • the factors that instigated the studies; • the government’s degree of commitment to implement the study’s recommendations; •. the nature of the public opinion surveys conducted in conjunction with the studies; • the structure of the direct participation processes; • the depth of research availabl [...] The latter took the form of a “Roundtable,” which was composed of representatives from the twelve different groups that had expressed an interest in the appropriate use of the park.1 The Roundtable met for two full days at a time, twice a month for approximately a year. [...] The direct involvement of the public was an attempt to obtain “buy in” from the various groups by giving them the opportunity to agree among themselves what the criteria should be for determining the “appropriate uses” of the park’s many natural resources. [...] The result was that it was difficult to convince the sectors that had been most directly responsible for the growth and health of the economy – such as agriculture, the railway, and the petroleum industry – to make Public participation. [...] The commitment of the City of Calgary to implement the recommendations of imagineCalgary was much less credible than was that of Parks Canada to the Banff Bow Valley Study.
sustainable development environment government education politics economics economy public participation conservation science and technology research resources government policy incentives parks political participation social sciences tax sustainable taxes policy cost–benefit analysis policymakers public sphere bow river banff national park