230
A. Machnik
the maximum of 5 elements included in description). Those elements, essential to
the overall success of ecotourism development, are as follows: nature, conservation,
education, community and impact.
However, as nature is crucial for this form, its presence in events and offers
is mandatory. As Cretu (2018) rightly points out, wild nature is not the base of
ecotourism in Europe, where it is more close to rural tourism and agritourism. On the
other hand, ecotourism nowadays is often introduced into urban areas, which could
be considered at first sight as a contradiction. Urban ecotourism takes place in areas
that offer a degree of naturalness in a situation where they are considerably modified
by previous human activities (Weaver 2005; Jegdi´ c and Miloševi´ c 2011; Jegdi´ c and
Gradinac 2016). This is additionally in accordance with the postulate that it is difficult
to reconcile the protection of highly important natural values with their visiting and
creating in the tourist infrastructure for this purpose (Higham and Lück 2002). As
it was mentioned above, ecotourism is often called green tourism, sound tourism,
eco-ethnic tourism, eco-friendly and so on. There are also many similar forms, e.g.
nature-based tourism (a.o. Tisdell 2003; Mehmetoglu 2007; Tisdell and Wilson 2012;
Machnik 2015; Stronza et al. 2019) and cultural tourism (especially indigenous
tourism—a.o. Zografos and Kenrick 2005; Zeppel 2006); both are organized on
a small scale, with the involvement of tourists and organizers. Community-based
tourism seems to be particularly close (a.o. Stronza and Gordillo 2008; Okazaki
2008; Garraway 2011; Silva 2015), which predominantly takes into account the
needs of the local community and is based on their own activity. Many authors
already merged the two concepts into community-based ecotourism (a.o. Brennan
and Allen 2001; Kiss 2004; Jones 2005). These close connections, moreover, result
from the definition of ecotourism and its main assumptions regarding care for local
nature and the community, and thus its culture and traditions. It can be said that the
only major difference is that in ecotourism the main emphasis is on local nature, while
in community-based tourism the emphasis is on local society. However, it should be
clearly stated that the mere fact of visiting areas with high natural or cultural values
does not warrant calling the event ecotourism. The same caveat applies to communitybased tourism. Many authors mentioned from the very beginning (a.o. Laarman and
Durst 1987; Fennel and Eagles 1990; Dyess 1997; Buckley 2003; Huddart and Stott
2020) that there are some connections between ecotourism and adventure tourism.
Fennell (2001) even proposed ‘ACE tourism’—a special combination of adventure,
ecotourism and cultural tourism. Offers combining elements of adventure tourism
and ecotourism can be particularly interesting for those who like an active lifestyle,
which is very popular nowadays. At the opposite pole, there seems to be another form
and a new, interesting approach which was proposed at the beginning of the twentyfirst century with reference to the idea of the slow movement—just as there can be
slow food or slow cities, there can be slow tourism and slow travel. According to
Conway and Timms (2010), ‘It represents a progressive genre of alternative tourism
for offerings, which are in need of re-branding, through the decentralized medium
of remote locales beyond mass-tourism complexes’. This form is not so connected
with nature and not so involved from the definition, but still displays some important
ecotourism behaviours and implements its main principles in its own way. As the
A. Machnik
the maximum of 5 elements included in description). Those elements, essential to
the overall success of ecotourism development, are as follows: nature, conservation,
education, community and impact.
However, as nature is crucial for this form, its presence in events and offers
is mandatory. As Cretu (2018) rightly points out, wild nature is not the base of
ecotourism in Europe, where it is more close to rural tourism and agritourism. On the
other hand, ecotourism nowadays is often introduced into urban areas, which could
be considered at first sight as a contradiction. Urban ecotourism takes place in areas
that offer a degree of naturalness in a situation where they are considerably modified
by previous human activities (Weaver 2005; Jegdi´ c and Miloševi´ c 2011; Jegdi´ c and
Gradinac 2016). This is additionally in accordance with the postulate that it is difficult
to reconcile the protection of highly important natural values with their visiting and
creating in the tourist infrastructure for this purpose (Higham and Lück 2002). As
it was mentioned above, ecotourism is often called green tourism, sound tourism,
eco-ethnic tourism, eco-friendly and so on. There are also many similar forms, e.g.
nature-based tourism (a.o. Tisdell 2003; Mehmetoglu 2007; Tisdell and Wilson 2012;
Machnik 2015; Stronza et al. 2019) and cultural tourism (especially indigenous
tourism—a.o. Zografos and Kenrick 2005; Zeppel 2006); both are organized on
a small scale, with the involvement of tourists and organizers. Community-based
tourism seems to be particularly close (a.o. Stronza and Gordillo 2008; Okazaki
2008; Garraway 2011; Silva 2015), which predominantly takes into account the
needs of the local community and is based on their own activity. Many authors
already merged the two concepts into community-based ecotourism (a.o. Brennan
and Allen 2001; Kiss 2004; Jones 2005). These close connections, moreover, result
from the definition of ecotourism and its main assumptions regarding care for local
nature and the community, and thus its culture and traditions. It can be said that the
only major difference is that in ecotourism the main emphasis is on local nature, while
in community-based tourism the emphasis is on local society. However, it should be
clearly stated that the mere fact of visiting areas with high natural or cultural values
does not warrant calling the event ecotourism. The same caveat applies to communitybased tourism. Many authors mentioned from the very beginning (a.o. Laarman and
Durst 1987; Fennel and Eagles 1990; Dyess 1997; Buckley 2003; Huddart and Stott
2020) that there are some connections between ecotourism and adventure tourism.
Fennell (2001) even proposed ‘ACE tourism’—a special combination of adventure,
ecotourism and cultural tourism. Offers combining elements of adventure tourism
and ecotourism can be particularly interesting for those who like an active lifestyle,
which is very popular nowadays. At the opposite pole, there seems to be another form
and a new, interesting approach which was proposed at the beginning of the twentyfirst century with reference to the idea of the slow movement—just as there can be
slow food or slow cities, there can be slow tourism and slow travel. According to
Conway and Timms (2010), ‘It represents a progressive genre of alternative tourism
for offerings, which are in need of re-branding, through the decentralized medium
of remote locales beyond mass-tourism complexes’. This form is not so connected
with nature and not so involved from the definition, but still displays some important
ecotourism behaviours and implements its main principles in its own way. As the