**4. Results**

The mayors first assessed the degree of participation in the land-use planning process in their municipality, identifying three levels of participation with regard to quantity. The first level is high, with more than 50% of the population taking part in the process, though such a high degree is rare, only being claimed by two of the 24 respondents. This was referred to as "The majority, more than half," with one mayor describing the highest possible level of participation as follows: "It seemed like everyone here was part of it, and I think it really was a 100% participation. We started off with a person requesting a change, and then we had a petition come up here with dozens of signatures protesting the architect's design." In 14 municipalities, the mayors estimated public engagemen<sup>t</sup> as medium, that is, including the involvement of groups amounting to dozens of inhabitants: "Participation was in the dozens. I'd say that the number of people was based on how much it involved the needs of the people who had some idea of what the land-use plan was and what it meant." In the remaining eight municipalities, the mayors described participation as low, that is, with only a few individuals engaged: "I could count the participants here on the fingers of one hand" and " ... we had some requests from one or two citizens at the beginning, but no one took part afterwards." The experience varies significantly from one municipality to another, ranging from practically zero participation by citizens to practically the whole municipality becoming involved. Therefore, it is not possible to specify a typical degree of participation in low-population municipalities, and it is evident that the degree of participation depends on the particularities of each municipality.

With regard to the importance or necessity of participation for land-use planning, the mayors most frequently mentioned that involvement in the land-use planning process allowed citizens to take part in the territorial development of their municipality: " ... if I live in some place, participation allows me to join in to what will be there in the future, what is planned there ... ", thus shaping the municipality and its territory in the future. Additionally, one mayor state the following: "Participation is essential, the land-use plan is a project related to the development of the municipality and its surroundings, for the future and for its long-term perspectives ... ". Participation may also introduce interesting

ideas and proposed solutions for the territory: " ... as the saying goes, 'two heads are better than one,' so you can have people with some good idea and good concept for a change within the territory," and "no one is wise in all ways, so another person's opinion and another point of view can be beneficial." Participation is a major aid to both expertsplanners, who are executing the land-use planning process, and to local politicians: "You can have a solid leadership, experts for preparing the land-use plan, but there has to be participation, because the citizens see how the territory develops, and the politicians and planners can easily miss something ... ". Additionally, if citizens enter the process, the resulting land-use plan can be adjusted according to their actual needs: "You can't set the way of life here properly without the public, of course you can't please everyone, but you won't find anything out without the citizens." Last but not least, participation is an attribute of democratic society in the sense that citizens have the option to co-decide the shape of the land-use plan, thus actually impacting the future of their municipality: "It's main importance is in the citizens' right to be able to express themselves; for the citizen to be content, he should have the right to expression." All mayors responded in the affirmative to the question of whether participation is essential, and none of the respondents claimed that they considered participation to be unnecessary for land-use planning.

With regard to the negative impacts of participation, the mayors pointed to the advancement of individual intentions, which are often less than beneficial to the municipality as a whole—" ... in those cases when the personal interests of a citizen are not beneficial to the municipality and are not in accordance with its interests and strategies"—with the only profit going to the person who made the proposal. This can stem from endeavors aimed at self-enrichment or efforts to boost the appreciation of one's property: " ... there is always a lot of lobbying for the appreciation of properties, but I've already seen elsewhere how it was appreciated and subsequently sold." Citizens may also be too strongly focused on the short-term perspective: "People often think of their short-term purpose, but they don't see further ahead. It's hard to explain to them that everything will be completely different in a few years' time." Another potential factor is a bad grasp of what land-use planning actually is and how it works: " ... sometimes the ignorance of the fact that the land-use plan deals with the municipality as a whole and not with individual ownership pleas; most people don't realise that and only try to protect their own interests." Participation can also easily lead to delays: " ... for instance, if you don't satisfy someone's demands, he can appeal and protest, and that can make the whole process take longer." Participatory tools can also be used negatively to create obstructions that do not even have to be related to the issue of land-use planning, but can merely be abused for the purpose of advancing someone's interests in other matters and for gaining attention: " ... if someone abuses the option of participation and there is no justification to it, or if they just block something from their own one-sided perspective ... one person can block the development of the whole municipality." Public involvement can also introduce a number of unrealistic demands for changes to the territory and its facilities, or foster resistance to necessary limitations: " ... so we all want to have water, gas, electricity everywhere, possibly other things for a good quality of living, but on the other hand no one wants any kind of limitations.". Furthermore, a high level of engagemen<sup>t</sup> can aggravate emotions, leading to escalated tensions in negotiations and consequently impacting the whole process of land-use planning: " ... it happens that if we have a work meeting where emotions ge<sup>t</sup> out of hand, the problem is escalated, and that can influence all the participants of course ... from my own experience, I know that it is difficult to calm the situation, and things can go against the public interest." Only two of the interviewed mayors reckoned that there was no negative side to participation.

Finally, the mayors were questioned about the possibility of completely removing civic participation from the land-use planning process. This option was categorically refused by two thirds of all mayors, who argued that the land-use plan is an instrument that will influence the future operations of the municipality: " ... it is a document which we will be working with here for as much as twenty years, and so I reckon it is important to have the

citizens involved." They also mentioned that participation is a feature of democracy and "bottom-up" planning: " ... if we excluded society, we'd be going back several decades to Socialist times ... ". They noted that the plan impacted both council property—" ... council land are property of the council, and so every citizen of the municipality has the right to voice their opinion ... "—and the private property of individual inhabitants—" ... you can't do it without participation because with regard to the inhabitants it often affects their ownership rights." Some of the mayors acknowledged that land-use planning could be conducted without public involvement, as a purely expert endeavor, but they immediately countered that this would not benefit the overall quality of the plan: " ... I guess you could do it without the people, but that would be wrong ... the land-use plan serves the citizens, and so everyone should have the option to have their say." One mayor declared that the exclusion of citizens would only be possible if " ... the plan was being made only for the needs of the council and council land and in no way affected private property." All in all, it can be stated that none of the mayors categorically claimed that it would be possible to exclude the public from the land-use planning process. When some of them did admit this as a possibility, they subsequently added that it would have a negative impact on the planning, or they stipulated specific conditions that would be required. The quantified responses in individual categories are summarized in Table 2.



The results can be summarized in such a way that civic participation provides space for commenting on the planned intentions, which might also result in an intervention that regulates the elaboration of a land-use plan in the place where residents live and whose lives are connected with it. It is beneficial if there are presentations of different, and even very different, opinions, because the presentation of a different opinion, which may be a different view of the matter, can help to form a better final solution. At the same time, it is possible to prevent the fact that, after the approval of the land-use plan, it would not be possible to implement the intentions (usually construction) that people would like because the land-use plan is set differently. Alternatively, some residents (usually older) may provide a retrospective view of how certain things used to work within the municipality before, and the municipality may return to this in some way, in a regime that is adapted to current conditions. By analogy, residents who previously lived elsewhere (at least temporarily) can bring insight and experience from another place to the planning

process. Social control is also very important as it can cover the shortcomings that may arise. Such shortcomings might be missed by experienced professionals, in spite of good managemen<sup>t</sup> of the municipality, because they do not have personal experience with (even minor) problems faced by everyday users of the place, while municipality managemen<sup>t</sup> may suffer from the so-called operational blindness. Last but not least, civic participation is an important element of democracy, as citizens have the right to engage in both their own intentions and lands, as well as in the area of public intentions and lands.
