**5. Discussion**

The research confirmed that participation in the land-use planning process helps identify areas where there is a risk of potential conflict in the use of the territory [28]. At the same time, it confirmed that every participatory tool has negative effects [11], as municipal authorities frequently come up against participatory bias [48] when individuals or groups advance their own interests: " ... this was mainly those citizens who somehow wanted to change the class of their property." If there are many such proposals, it can negatively impact the process by delaying it considerably. However, if the citizens' suggestions are factual, it is an example of positive engagement, which allows the citizens to increase their awareness of land-use planning and is conducive to collaborative education [3–5]. Citizen proposals that are denied pose a certain risk, however, as " ... those people feel that their needs weren't heard out, so then they turn to the other side, which can reflect negatively on to the next phase of planning," so it is important to communicate with citizens [13]; experts must thus be able to negotiate [43]. However, even denied applications are valuable, as the issues at hand may be properly discussed during the preparation of the land-use plan, consequently avoiding later protests of citizens dissatisfied with the planned intentions of their local governmen<sup>t</sup> [30]. Furthermore, even rejected proposals may bring about synergic effects. If the citizens' suggestions are accepted, it generally leads to a greater level of contentment with the solutions applied by the land-use plan [2,58]. It is also important to evaluate whether participation is relevant and beneficial to a given intention [10], as this might not always be the case, for example, with regard to hard infrastructure: " ... that is then the task of experts and us as the municipal authority, to what extent we set the participation and how the information is used". This involves the positive factor of facilitating discussion between the involved parties [6] and of disseminating information about land-use planning, as citizens are only able to plan effectively and correctly if they are sufficiently informed about the given territory [12].

The research did not confirm that participation in land-use planning in the analysed municipalities was of a merely pro-forma character [37] or that its importance was underestimated by politicians and experts: [40] " ... you can't just have the outside perspective ... ". On the other hand, it was confirmed that participatory mechanisms are institutionalized to a lesser degree than would be suitable [38], which is caused, among other factors, by the absence of methodological frameworks that would support participation in the planning process: [45] " ... so then it's up to the council to ge<sup>t</sup> it out among the people and for them to realise that it's part of the development of the municipality". In relation to this point, some of the municipalities recognized their limitations: " ... we lagged behind in our efforts to spread among the people how important the plan is and what it means." It is a considerable challenge for both local authorities and experts to take the proposals of citizens into account and implement them where applicable [37,41]: " ... the contracting authority should somehow come to terms with the material considerations, so the opinions of those people are taken seriously and properly assessed." One problematic area with untapped potential is that municipalities generally rely solely on voluntary participation and do not actively seek information by other means [52], although it can be seen as positive that local governments seek informal negotiations and channels for informing about land-use planning, for example, in the form of local bulletins, informal work meetings, or the municipal broadcast.

An important issue that would facilitate the definition of the optimal level of civic participation would be the identification of factors that influence the level of public involvement, both positively and negatively. The stimulus for involvement in land-use planning is often some personal benefit, which relates to the effort to promote one´s interest, or to evaluate one´s property [23]. Therefore, it is important to look for ways to strengthen participation in matters concerning the municipality as a whole. Since something can be created or changed through participation, it is important that it also functions as a social control [70]. It is likely that the overall level of public involvement is significantly influenced by the social factors that determine how a society operates. If there is a low level of participation in the municipality for a long time and a general lack of interest in public affairs, then this state can become a natural state of the place. Closely related to this is collaborative learning [3–5], which can work for an individual in such a way that if people around them are interested in the matter, they will also be interested in it as well, because it is probably important. Of course, the whole thing can work the other way around—if no one around an individual shows interest in something, it is normal and the individual will not behave differently. This is associated with collective action [71] and the ability to cooperate in the community [35], both of which are further linked to social cohesion [54,72]. However, it would be difficult to find ways to do this, especially for municipalities where interest in public affairs is traditionally small, and a possible solution may be to profile a leader [73]. This individual would be the main leader for the issue and would be able to attract other residents and arouse interest in the matter at hand. Ideally, the role of the leader would be performed by the mayor or another important representative of the municipality.

The combination of traditional and modern tools is suitable for strengthening civic participation. It does not only have to involve the usual simplistic view that traditional tools are for the elderly and modern tools are for the young, as it is a matter of allowing everyone to choose what suits them. As a result, the citizens will feel comfortable using the tool and they can be expected to provide sufficient feedback within their individual possibilities. However, it is important to look for ways to suppress participatory bias throughout the process [48,51], because, if the level of participation is low and only those who want to achieve something and pursue their individual intention are involved, it can be very negative for the community. In addition, it is important not to rely on the voluntary participation of citizens [52], but to really use the knowledge from the public, not just to encourage participation, but also to create opportunities for involvement [70]. The municipality can also use the so-called web 2.0 for obtaining observations [52], which is easily accessible with the current massive development of social networks, so the municipality can continuously monitor feedback and problems. However, especially in small municipalities, it can be problematic to allocate personnel capacities to this activity.
