Safari Real Estate vs. Traditional Real Estate: Key Similarities and Differences

Safari real estate sits within the broader category of hospitality real estate. At a structural level, many of the same principles apply. At the operating level, however, the context in which these assets function introduces differences that matter for investors.

What Is Similar

At their core, safari properties are operating businesses anchored to physical assets. Revenue is driven by nightly rates, occupancy, and the quality of the guest experience. Cost structures include staffing, maintenance, utilities, food and beverage, marketing, and management, all familiar components within hospitality real estate.

Asset value is shaped by operating performance over time. Pricing power, demand consistency, cost discipline, and effective distribution support higher valuations, while weak execution erodes value. Capital structure, leverage, and holding period similarly influence outcomes, just as they do across hospitality assets in more established markets.

From an analytical standpoint, safari real estate can be evaluated using the same financial lenses: operating margins, cash flow durability, capital expenditure requirements, and exit assumptions.

What Is Different

The differences emerge primarily from location, access, and operating environment.

Safari properties are typically located in or near protected landscapes, concessions, or community land. Supply is structurally constrained by regulation, conservation frameworks, and land-use controls. While this limits competition, it increases reliance on permits, long-term agreements, and stakeholder relationships.

Demand is experience-driven rather than convenience-driven. Guests travel specifically for wildlife, landscape, and remoteness. This creates strong willingness to pay, but also introduces seasonality and sensitivity to global travel patterns.

Operations are inherently more complex. Remote locations require self-sufficiency in power, water, logistics, staffing, and maintenance. Labour intensity is higher, and the guest experience depends more on training, systems, and consistency than on scale efficiencies.

Ownership can also carry an additional dimension. In some cases, investors have the ability to experience the asset directly through stays or preferential access, linking ownership and use in a way that is uncommon in most hospitality real estate.

Types of Safari Properties

Safari properties span several formats, each with different capital requirements, operating complexity, and environmental impact. While all are experience-driven, the chosen format materially affects investment size, speed to market, and long-term flexibility.

At a high level, safari properties fall into four categories.

Tented Camps

Tented camps are the most common format within national parks and protected areas. They use semi-permanent structures designed to minimise environmental impact while offering high guest immersion.

In Tanzania, new camps typically operate under a temporary licence before qualifying for a permanent one, creating a phased development pathway. An initial phase often involves approximately 14 units, requiring around $1 million in capital and 4–6 months to deliver, including licensing, construction, and initial working capital.

Once operating performance is established, a permanent licence allows for expansion, more durable shared spaces, and permanent infrastructure. This format enables faster market entry, limits upfront capital, and preserves adaptability over time.

Light-Weight Lodges

Light-weight lodges are suited to locations where weather conditions, guest expectations, or longer operating seasons require more durable construction. These are often outside core parks or in areas with better access and existing infrastructure.

While less immersive than tented camps, they are generally easier to build, operate, and maintain, with lower logistical risk.

Permanent Lodges and Resorts

Some safari destinations support fully permanent structures built with concrete and heavy materials. These projects are more capital intensive, slower to deliver, and harder to modify once built.

In remote environments, costs rise sharply due to transport, labour, and environmental mitigation, often without a proportional increase in revenue or resilience.

Mobile and Seasonal Camps

Mobile camps are temporary, low-impact setups that follow wildlife movements or operate only during peak seasons. Capital requirements are limited, but success depends heavily on operational expertise. These formats are less suited to long-term real estate ownership.

Investment Implications

Conserve Safari focuses on tented camps and light-weight lodges. This approach prioritises capital efficiency, speed to revenue, operational flexibility, and a lower environmental footprint. More permanent developments are not excluded in principle, but in remote safari environments they often increase risk and reduce adaptability without a clear economic advantage.

For investors, understanding these formats is essential. The type of safari property determines not only how much capital is required, but how quickly a project reaches the market, how it performs operationally, and how resilient it remains over time.