U.S. Glamping Industry Overview & Outlook

Introduction

The U.S. glamping sector continues to mature, blending outdoor recreation with upscale hospitality. Investors, lenders, and developers are eyeing this niche as it transitions from startup ventures into an institutional asset class. This expanded report provides deeper insights into critical development considerations, including regulatory permitting, ADA compliance, financing structures, and major operator strategies, with a brief look at lessons from more mature glamping markets abroad. The analysis maintains a feasibility-oriented perspective, highlighting practical implications for underwriting and site development.

Permitting Processes & Regulatory Frameworks

Navigating land-use regulations is a pivotal early step for any glamping project. Zoning and permitting requirements vary widely by jurisdiction, often requiring creative approaches and patience.

• Zoning and Land Use: Glamping developments are typically classified as campgrounds or outdoor lodging in zoning codes. Many rural counties are amenable to such uses on agricultural or recreational land, while urban-edge areas often need special use permits. For example, in Colorado, rural zones (e.g. Park or Larimer County) allow campgrounds as-of-right or by minor permit, whereas near cities like Boulder a commercial or special use permitis required. In California, glamping usually must locate on land zoned for lodging or with a conditional use on ag land, aligning with local plans.

• Local Permitting Examples: Regulations can differ even at the county level. San Luis Obispo County, CAdefines “incidental camping” on farms with up to 10 units, allowed via a simple Site Plan Review; larger setups (11+ units) trigger a higher permit tier and public hearings. Such frameworks aim to balance rural tourism with community impacts. In practice, meeting minimum parcel sizes (e.g. 20–40 acres for ag land) and setbacks (often 1,000 ft from roads/property lines) is required. By contrast, Texashas generally looser rural zoning – many counties have no zoning at all – but developers must still comply with health and safety codes (e.g. well and septic permits) and any applicable county ordinances. In some Texas municipalities, glamping can fall under RV park or “tent campground” licensing; for instance, New Braunfels, TX mandates an annual campground operator license within city limits (to enforce health/fire standards). Early due diligence on local definitions of “campground” or “short-term rental” is essential to avoid regulatory setbacks.

• Building Codes & Safety: Glamping structures range from tents and yurts to tiny cabins, creating ambiguity in code compliance. Many jurisdictions offer relief for small, temporary structures: for example, Colorado exempts units under ~200 sq. ft. from full building code if no permanent foundations or utilities are attached. However, once plumbing or electrical systems are added, full inspections and code compliance (footings, wind/snow loads, fire safety) apply. Developers should design with local codes in mind – e.g. using fire-resistant materials in wildfire-prone areas or engineering tents for snow loads in alpine sites. California’s codes are notably stringent; glamping tents with platforms may need engineering sign-off for structural stability and must adhere to wildfire mitigation rules (cleared vegetation, on-site extinguishers, etc.). Many counties also require emergency plans and clearly marked evacuation routes given the remote settings and wildfire risks.

• Health & Sanitation: As public accommodations, glamping sites must satisfy health department regulations. This typically means providing adequate potable water and waste disposal. Counties often insist on approved sanitation facilities – whether permanent bathhouses, septic systems, or portable restrooms – before granting permits. California, for instance, requires that glamping sites have restrooms meeting code (flush toilets or permitted composting units) and proper greywater handling. Many states require any on-site well water to be tested and any food service to be licensed per public health laws. Early engagement with health officials and incorporating utility infrastructure (or contracting pump-out services for off-grid toilets) is a must in project planning.

• Environmental and Special Regulations: Glamping projects often occur in scenic, environmentally sensitive locales, triggering additional reviews. California may mandate CEQA environmental impact assessments for larger or sensitive-site projects (e.g. near wetlands or critical habitats). Setbacks from water bodies are common; Colorado Parks & Wildlife, for example, enforces stream and wetland buffers to protect riparian areas. In coastal California, developers must also obtain Coastal Commission approval to ensure the project doesn’t harm coastal resources. These environmental permits add time and cost but are critical for long-term sustainability. Developers should budget for studies (biological, cultural, traffic) and possibly mitigation measures (wildlife-friendly lighting, noise limits, etc.). On the upside, glamping’s low-impact designs (e.g. tents on platforms) can help streamline approvals by minimizing permanent disturbance to the land.

Practical Implications: From an underwriting perspective, the entitlement risk in glamping projects is significant. Lenders and investors should scrutinize the permitting status and timeline in each deal. Delays in securing a conditional use permit or meeting health/fire codes can postpone opening by months or years. It’s prudent to require a zoning verification letter or equivalent evidence that the site’s use is allowable. Contingency reserves for permitting and code compliance should be built into development budgets. Engaging land-use attorneys or permit expeditors early can de-risk the process. Ultimately, projects that demonstrate community and regulatory alignment – for instance, by adhering to local comprehensive plans and investing in safety infrastructure – will face fewer hurdles in obtaining permits and, by extension, in securing financing.

ADA Compliance Requirements and Best Practices

Glamping may evoke images of rugged safari tents, but as a form of public lodging it must welcome guests of all abilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ADA Title III requirements apply to “public accommodations” including hotels and resorts – and glampgrounds are no exception. Developers need to incorporate accessible design into both physical facilities and operations from the outset to comply with legal mandates and to tap a broader customer base.

• Legal Requirements: At a minimum, any new U.S. glamping development (other than very small, owner-occupied B&B-style operations) must provide a portion of units and common areas that are ADA accessible. As a rule of thumb, if a property has 6 or more guest units, at least one should be fully ADA-compliant (e.g. reserved for disabled guests). This aligns with federal lodging standards, which exempt only inns with 5 or fewer rooms occupied by the owner. In practice, larger glamping resorts will need to meet the same numerical standards as hotels – roughly 5–10% of units accessible, including some with roll-in showers if bathrooms are provided. Common amenities (dining tents, pools, pathways, parking) also must be accessible. Non-compliance not only risks lawsuits and DOJ penalties, but also forgoes an estimated $490 billion market in U.S. consumer spending by people with disabilities and their families.

• Site Design and Infrastructure: Accessible routes are a cornerstone of ADA design. Glamping sites, often set in natural terrain, must integrate graded, firm pathways at least 36 inches wide connecting parking, tents, bathrooms, and common areas. This can entail using compacted gravel, boardwalks, or paving in key areas – while balancing environmental aesthetics. Each accessible tent or cabin needs a step-free entry (ramps with 1:12 slope or level entrance), and doorways at least 32″ clear width. Bathroom facilities (whether en-suite or communal) must have grab bars, wheelchair turnaround space, roll-in showers or shower chairs, and reachable fixtures. For example, luxury glamping tents have been adapted with widened entrances and large canvas bathroom add-ons to meet these needs. Under Canvas’s Bryce Canyon camp includes dedicated “disability-friendly” tents that feature adjacent parking, ramped entry decks, and oversized bathrooms for accessibility. These modifications demonstrate how upscale camping can be made barrier-free without sacrificing the guest experience.

• Accessible Accommodations & Amenities: Beyond the basic dimensional requirements, the best practice is to consider the overall comfort and safety of guests with disabilities. Interior layouts of tents or cabins should allow a wheelchair to maneuver easily around beds and furniture (clear floor space and 27″ under-bed clearance per guidelines). Beds can be slightly lowered for easier transfers. Light switches, outlets, and shelf storage should be within reachable ranges (typically 15″–48″ above floor). In communal areas like dining yurts or lounge tents, include wheelchair-accessible seating options and bars/counters at appropriate height. Visual and auditory accommodations are often overlooked but critical: high-contrast wayfinding signs, Braille labels on cabin/tent identifiers, and hearing loops or visual alarm signals in units are recommended.

• Operational Considerations: ADA compliance extends to policies and training. Glamping staff should be trained in assisting guests with special needs – from driving a guest via ATV to their tent if the terrain is challenging, to understanding service animal rules. Many top glamping operators treat accessibility as part of their brand promise: The Embers Glamping in Missouri, for example, prominently states its commitment to both physical and digital accessibility (WCAG-compliant websites), signaling an inclusive approach. It’s prudent for new developments to consult an ADA specialist during design and to conduct a self-audit or hire an ADA inspector prior to opening. This can catch issues like improper ramp slopes or missing clearance, which are easier to fix before guests arrive.

• Case Example – AutoCamp: AutoCamp, known for its Airstream suites, has integrated ADA suites at each of its locations. At AutoCamp Yosemite, 5 of the 98 units are ADA-compliant “accessible suites,” complete with roll-in showers and adapted layouts. These units blend seamlessly with the overall design (often they are slightly larger X Suites) and ensure the property can serve all guests. AutoCamp’s example underscores that thoughtful planning (and working with architects familiar with accessibility) can yield attractive, functional ADA units that enhance the resort’s appeal and meet legal standards.

Practical Implications: For underwriters and developers, ADA compliance is not just a legal checkbox but a market opportunity. Projects that incorporate universal design from the start may enjoy higher occupancy by attracting multi-generational family groups and disability travel markets. Lenders should verify that accessibility features are accounted for in the construction budget – retrofitting later can be costlier (and may require shutting down operations). From a risk perspective, properties with evident ADA compliance are less exposed to litigation risk, which has been rising in the hospitality sector (campgrounds and hotels have seen a spike in ADA lawsuits in recent years. Including an ADA compliance review in due diligence (and perhaps obtaining representation of compliance in loan covenants) can protect investors. In short, aligning glamping development with ADA best practices – such as providing ramps, accessible bathrooms, and a percentage of units with full accessibility – is both good business and essential for legal conformity.

Capital Stack & Financing Examples

Glamping developments occupy a unique space in financing – they’re operational businesses with real estate assets, often in rural locales. A blended capital stack is commonly used, combining government-backed loans for small businesses or rural development with conventional debt and sponsor equity. Below are typical financing structures and real-world examples:

• SBA 504 Loan Structure: Many independent glamping projects qualify as small businesses and can leverage the Small Business Administration 504 program for construction and real estate. An SBA 504 loan pairs a bank loan (typically 50% of project cost) with a CDC (Certified Development Company) second mortgage (40%), leaving only ~10% equity requirement. For example, consider a $4 million luxury campground: a local bank might issue a $2M first mortgage, the SBA 504 program (via a CDC) adds $1.6M in a 20-year second lien, and the developer injects $400k equity. This high-leverage, fixed-rate financing is attractive for projects with significant upfront site-work and structure costs. Interest rates on the SBA second are competitive (often below market), and the term can extend to 25 years, improving cash flow. The SBA 504 is restricted to fixed assets (land, buildings, infrastructure), which aligns well since glamping developers often need to invest in land acquisition, utility installations, platforms, and purchase of tents/cabins (these are usually considered equipment or fixtures). A notable example is a California glamping resort that utilized an SBA 504 loan to fund its land purchase and geodesic domes – the SBA portion provided long-term financing up to the program’s cap (recently $5–10 million depending on project type), enabling the owners to start with just 15% down yet secure a prime location. Implication: Lenders and investors can view SBA 504 involvement as a de-risking factor, since the SBA’s due diligence and guarantee on the CDC portion indicate a vetted project plan. However, the two-tier loan structure means intercreditor arrangements and timeline considerations (SBA approvals can take extra time).

• SBA 7(a) and Other SBA Loans: Smaller glamping businesses (loan needs under $5M) often opt for SBA 7(a)loans due to their flexibility (funds can cover working capital and FF&E in addition to real estate). For instance, a startup glamping camp needing $1 million for land improvements and tents might get a bank to issue an SBA 7(a) loan at 75% LTV, with the SBA guaranteeing 75–85% of that loan. The 7(a) typically carries a 10–25 year term (depending on collateral), slightly higher rates than 504 but simpler execution. In one case, a new 10-tent resort in upstate New York combined an SBA 7(a) loan ($800k) with a small private investor equity round to finance its launch, achieving a sub-6% interest rate thanks to the SBA guarantee. Implication: From a developer’s standpoint, SBA loans can significantly reduce the required equity – but borrowers must meet SBA eligibility (owner-operated business, size limits) and guarantors will need strong credit. Lenders like Live Oak Bank and others have specialized in campground and RV park lending and report that SBA programs are well-suited for glamping deals given their hybrid real estate/hospitality nature.

• USDA Business & Industry (B&I) Loan Guarantees: For larger projects in rural areas, the USDA B&I program is a powerful tool. The USDA provides loan guarantees (60–80%) to encourage banks to lend to rural businesses, including recreation and tourism facilities. Unlike SBA loans, which cap out around $5–10M, USDA B&I can support much larger financings (up to ~$25 million loan size). A real-world example: a developer building a 40-unit glamping resort in a rural county used a USDA B&I guarantee to secure a $8 million construction-to-perm loan from a regional bank. The USDA guaranteed 80% of the loan’s principal, substantially reducing the bank’s risk. Terms under B&I can be very favorable – up to 40-year amortization on real estate and interest rates similar to conventional commercial mortgages, due to the federal guarantee. One USDA-backed deal in 2023 financed a new 60-room outdoor lodging project (a hybrid of cabins and tents) in Tennessee; the USDA guarantee allowed the lender to advance a high LTV loan, rounding out the capital stack so the sponsor only had ~20% equity in – a structure comparable to hotel deals. Implication: From an underwriting perspective, a USDA guarantee greatly mitigates default risk (the government covers losses on the guaranteed portion). Sponsors should be prepared for a rigorous application (feasibility study, rural eligibility tests, and USDA’s environmental review). But once in place, the B&I loan can anchor the financing with low debt service, making the project more resilient in its early years. Lenders not familiar with glamping may become comfortable knowing USDA has effectively underwritten the loan as well.

• Conventional Bank Debt: As glamping gains acceptance, some banks provide conventional loans, especially for established operators or strong locations. Terms will mirror boutique hotel or campground financing – often 55–70% Loan-to-Cost, 5–10 year terms with 20–25 year amortization, and requirement of personal guarantees and collateral. For example, an experienced hospitality sponsor developing a glamping camp near a major national park might secure a local bank loan for 60% of project cost at a fixed 6.5% rate, backed by a mortgage on the land and improvements. However, conventional lenders will underwrite cautiously, often requiring projections that show DSCR > 1.3x at stabilized occupancy and possibly cross-collateralization or recourse. Blends are common: a bank might lend 50% LTC in first position, while mezzanine debt or a preferred equity fills an additional 15–20% of the stack (this mezz piece might come from a private lender at a higher rate). The remaining 30% is true equity. Glamping’s unproven markets can make pure conventional financing expensive or limited in leverage. That’s why many developers turn to the SBA/USDA programs above or bring in partner equity to reduce reliance on debt.

• Real-World Capital Stack Illustrations: A typical mid-sized glampground ($2–$5M cost) might have a capital stack like this: 10% sponsor equity, 10% friends & family equity (or crowdfunding), ~50% bank loan (could be conventional or SBA first mortgage), and ~30% subordinated debt via SBA 504 or a seller note or local development grant. Some projects use Seller Financing or Land Contribution – e.g. a landowner contributes the site in exchange for equity, thereby reducing cash outlay. Others have tapped state or local tourism grants for pieces of the funding (for instance, states like Colorado and Maine have offered small tourism enterprise grants that effectively act as free equity). Another viable component is the Section 504 Energy or USDA REAP grants for solar panels or other sustainable infrastructure, offsetting costs and pleasing lenders by improving DSCR via lower operating expenses.

  
  

• Case Study – Under Canvas Expansion Funding: Major operators have attracted institutional capital. Under Canvas (the upscale tent resort chain) was recapitalized by private equity firm KSL Capital, which reportedly invested over $25M in 2022 to fuel new camp development. Similarly, AutoCamp raised $115M in equity commitments in 2019 to accelerate its national expansion. These infusions are often used alongside project-level debt. For example, when AutoCamp Yosemite was built, the ~$10M project was financed by a mix of the corporate equity raise and a construction loan; the site opened with 80 Airstreams and multiple ADA suites, showcasing the scale achievable when ample capital is deployed. For smaller developers, partnering with high-net-worth investors or specialty outdoor hospitality funds can provide equity that pairs with SBA/USDA loans to achieve a workable financing plan.

Practical Implications: For lenders, glamping deals can be underwritten akin to boutique hotels but with careful attention to sponsor experience and contingency funds (due to weather or seasonality swings). Government credit enhancements (SBA/USDA) materially reduce risk – lenders should consider these programs to improve terms for both sides. From an investor viewpoint, the capital stack complexity underscores the importance of realistic feasibility studies and phased growth. Feasibility consultants should test sensitivity on debt coverage with various financing mixes. Projects that demonstrate reasonable leverage (50–70% debt), sponsor cash equity in the deal, and backup funding sources (e.g. the ability to inject more equity if ramp-up is slow) will instill greater confidence. Emerging lenders in this space (like specialized RV park finance teams) note that combining sources can be advantageous – for instance, using an SBA loan for infrastructure and a conventional line for working capital – but the business plan must support servicing all obligations. In summary, creative financing is available for glamping, and successful developers often blend public and private financing to lower their cost of capital and share risk.

Profiles of Major U.S. Glamping Operators

The U.S. market has seen a few brands scale up rapidly, each with distinct positioning. Understanding their expansion strategies and operating models provides context for the industry’s trajectory and competitive benchmarks for new projects.

Under Canvas (Safari Tents Near National Parks)

Under Canvas is often regarded as a pioneer of upscale glamping in America. Founded in 2012, the company focuses on safari-style tented camps adjacent to iconic national parks. It has grown to 13 locations nationwide, from Yellowstone and Moab to the Great Smoky Mountains. Under Canvas camps feature large canvas tents on platforms, outfitted with king beds, en-suite bathrooms, wood stoves, and high-thread-count linens – delivering a “hotel in the wild” experience. Their model targets national park tourists who seek comfort but want to be immersed in nature.

• Expansion and Investment: Backed by private equity (KSL Capital Partners), Under Canvas has been investing aggressively in new sites and brands. In 2025 the company announced a $50 million expansion plan to open new camps in California and the Pacific Northwest. Recently, Under Canvas opened a camp near Yosemite and one in Washington’s Columbia River Gorge, filling gaps in its coast-to-coast portfolio. They also reinvest in existing sites – upgrading tents, adding activities – to maintain a luxury standard (the infusion of capital from KSL in 2021–22 was partly used to enhance amenities at flagship locations). This indicates confidence in robust demand and a race to secure prime locations near high-visitation parks. Under Canvas reports strong occupancy in peak seasons and has garnered accolades (Condé Nast Traveler and Travel+Leisure have named it in “Best Resorts” lists).

• New Brands – ULUM and Outdoor Collection: Recognizing segment opportunities, Under Canvas launched ULUM in 2023 – a bespoke ultra-luxury glamping resort concept. The first ULUM opened in Moab, Utah, featuring even more upscale touches (e.g. upscale dining, plunge pools, and grand lobby tents). ULUM Moab earned two Michelin Keys in 2024 (a mark of exceptional experience). This brand extension positions Under Canvas to capture the higher-spend segment and perhaps compete with luxury safari lodges globally. In 2025, Under Canvas also introduced an “Outdoor Collection” – a curated soft brand for unique nature-based properties that don’t fit the safari tent mold. Early examples include a partnership with an established Michigan glamping retreat and a Montana ranch property. Through the Outdoor Collection, Under Canvas can affiliate with or manage third-party glamping sites, broadening its reach without full development risk. This strategy mirrors how traditional hotel companies use soft brands to grow distribution.

• Positioning: Under Canvas’s positioning centers on experiential travel in remote landscapes with upscale hospitality. The camps typically operate seasonally (spring through fall) except some milder climate locations. They emphasize sustainability – tents are low-impact and often off-grid, and the company has a strong environmental ethos. The target demographic includes couples and families aged 30–60, often national park enthusiasts, with a willingness to pay $300–$600 per night for a unique experience. With the Hyatt Hotels partnership (Under Canvas properties are bookable via Hyatt’s platform as of 2024, under the Mr. & Mrs. Smith collection), Under Canvas is tapping into major loyalty networks, which should further boost occupancy and rate by accessing a luxury travel audience. For underwriters, Under Canvas’s success demonstrates that proximity to demand generators (parks) and delivering consistent quality can yield high ADRs and strong guest loyalty in glamping. They have effectively created a brand moat in their segment, which new entrants will benchmark against.

AutoCamp (Modern Airstream Resorts and Tents)

AutoCamp, founded in 2016, takes a slightly different approach – focusing on design-led accommodations (custom Airstream trailers, sleek cabins, and tents) with boutique hotel-like clubhouses. AutoCamp’s properties are located in high-demand outdoor destinations but often closer to urban gateways (e.g. Yosemite near Mariposa, CA; Cape Cod, MA; Catskills, NY). Each site features a central clubhouse with chic mid-century-modern design, food and beverage service, and amenities like fire pits and pools. Guests choose between sleeping in shiny aluminum Airstream suites (fully furnished with bathrooms and HVAC), luxurious canvas tents, or in some locations modern tiny-home cabins. This model blends the nostalgia and novelty of trailer camping with the comfort of a hotel – a strong draw for millennials and Gen Z travelers seeking Instagrammable stays.

• Current Footprint and Growth: AutoCamp currently has 8 operating locations (California sites include Santa Barbara, Russian River, Yosemite, and Joshua Tree; others in Zion UT, the Catskills NY, Cape Cod MA, and a newly opened Asheville, NC). The brand is on an aggressive growth trajectory: new locations in Sequoia, CA (summer 2024) and the Texas Hill Country (scheduled 2025) have been announced. In fact, AutoCamp’s leadership has hinted at a pipeline aiming for “100 AutoCamp locations in 10 years” – an ambitious plan that underscores how scalable they believe the concept is. Fueling this, AutoCamp raised $115 million in equity in 2019 from investors to fund national expansion. That capital enabled opening multiple sites and developing a second product line (see below). Additionally, in 2023 AutoCamp entered a high-profile partnership with Hilton: AutoCamp properties are joining Hilton’s reservation and Honors points network, dramatically increasing their marketing reach. This deal – a non-equity alliance – lets Hilton offer glamping to its customers and gives AutoCamp credibility and access to millions of loyalty members. Already, AutoCamp Cape Cod and others are bookable through Hilton and award points, with elite benefits like upgrades or free s’mores kits for Hilton Diamond members. Such partnerships signal that glamping is entering the mainstream hospitality fold.

• Field Station Brand: AutoCamp isn’t just replicating its existing formula; it launched a sister brand called Field Station in 2023. Field Station takes over and renovates traditional motels/lodges in outdoor destinations, rebranding them with an adventure aesthetic as affordable “basecamps.” Two Field Station properties – in Moab, UT and Joshua Tree, CA – are already open, featuring updated rooms, gear rentals, and local guides on staff. This brand allows AutoCamp to capture a different price point and use existing buildings (a faster expansion method than ground-up development of Airstream parks). The plan is to grow Field Station alongside AutoCamp resorts, broadening market coverage. For investors, the Field Station strategy is noteworthy: it could provide steadier, year-round cash flow (some locations are open all seasons with heated rooms) to complement the more seasonal, resort-like AutoCamps. It also indicates AutoCamp’s goal to dominate outdoor lodging not just in glamping but across the spectrum of rustic-modern accommodations.

• Positioning: AutoCamp markets itself on modern design, comfort, and community. The typical guest might be a young professional or family that loves the idea of road-tripping in nature but wants a hassle-free stay (no setting up tents or sacrificing a good shower). Nightly rates range roughly $200–$400, putting it in upscale territory, though they have introduced more accessible pricing at certain times to broaden appeal. AutoCamp sites often have programming like yoga classes, live music, and food trucks, cultivating a social atmosphere. With strong branding and venture backing, AutoCamp’s competitive edge lies in its consistent quality and lifestyle vibe – more akin to a boutique hotel chain transplanted to the woods. Underwriters evaluating new glamping projects should note AutoCamp’s high development costs (Airstream suites can cost $100k+ each) are offset by premium rates and high ADR. AutoCamp’s success with the Hilton partnership and multi-coast presence underscores that institutional-grade operations and marketing can drive occupancy in this sector. It sets a benchmark for guest expectations around amenities and design.

Collective Retreats (Boutique Luxury in Unique Locations)

Collective Retreats, founded in 2015, has carved out a niche at the very high end of glamping. They operate small, ultra-luxury tented camps in out-of-the-ordinary locations, combined with gourmet dining and curated local experiences. Currently Collective has four U.S. retreats – two in Colorado, one in upstate New York (a seasonal retreat on Governors Island in New York Harbor), and one in the Texas Hill Country. Each features large canvas tents or luxury yurts with stylish locally-inspired décor, high-end furnishings (e.g. plush rugs, chandelier lighting), and full bathroom facilities. Collective pairs these with farm-to-table dining (often hiring notable chefs) and activities like yoga at sunrise, sommelier-led wine tastings, fly fishing outings, etc.. The emphasis is on an intimate, bespoke stay – guest counts are usually under 40 per site, allowing personalized service.

• Expansion Plans: Collective Retreats has drawn major hospitality industry interest. Notably, it forged a partnership with Marriott in recent years: Collective was set to join Marriott’s Autograph Collection as an experiential offering, and while an outright acquisition hasn’t occurred, Marriott’s development arm has signaled outdoor hospitality deals (in late 2024 Marriott announced “two founding deals” in the outdoor space, one of which is believed to involve Collective or similar luxury players). Collective Retreats also secured investment from Outdoorsy (an RV rental platform) and has floated plans for international growth. In fact, a Collective Retreats camp is slated to open in Saudi Arabia in 2024/25, in partnership with a destination developer. This would mark one of the first U.S.-born glamping brands to expand overseas, highlighting the global appeal of the concept. Domestically, Collective has experimented with unique locales – their NYC Governors Island retreat (opened 2018) offered luxury tents with views of the Manhattan skyline, a groundbreaking urban glamping model. While their Colorado and Texas retreats are more traditional ranch/outdoor settings, the willingness to do “pop-up” city glamping shows innovative potential for high-ADR opportunities in non-traditional places.

• Positioning and Operations: Collective Retreats positions itself as ultra-premium, with an emphasis on local authenticity and exclusivity. By sporting small unit counts and high staff-to-guest ratios, they create a “five-star” atmosphere under canvas. Rates are accordingly high – often $500–$700 per night per tent, with gourmet meals included. The brand caters to special occasions, corporate retreats, and affluent travelers seeking brag-worthy experiences. For instance, a package at Collective Vail might include private guided mountain excursions by day and a chef’s tasting menu under the stars by night. This approach mirrors luxury safari camps in Africa or Asia. One challenge for this model is seasonality and scale: luxury tents in Colorado mountains can only operate part of the year, and fixed costs are high. Collective seems to address this by charging a premium and by potentially using a club-like membership or repeat guest strategy (they have a “Conservatory Collective” membership for access to unique retreats worldwide). In terms of development, Collective often partners with existing properties – e.g. a ranch or vineyard provides the site and base infrastructure, and Collective layers its tents and services on top. This asset-light approach means faster setup and lower capital needs (often the land partner shares in revenue).

• Implications: Collective Retreats demonstrates the upper limit of glamping ADRs and how experiential programming can justify those rates. For developers looking to pitch projects to lenders, the success of Collective’s Governors Island project (achieving high occupancy at luxury rates within sight of Manhattan) is proof that location-specific uniqueness can trump traditional hotel metrics. However, it also shows that such projects must deliver exceptional quality to generate repeat business and withstand economic swings. Investors should note that Collective’s scale is still small – they are essentially in the luxury boutique segment, which can be profitable but isn’t a volume play. In the broader market, Collective’s influence is seen in many new glamping projects aiming to be “the next Collective” with fancy tents and gourmet dining. This raises the bar for luxury glamping underwriting: feasibility studies must account for the significant operating costs (chefs, activity guides, luxury maintenance) and the niche size of the ultra-luxury customer pool. Still, Collective’s model, especially if backed by a major hotel brand’s marketing, has growth potential and offers a template for blending high-end resort standards with outdoor lodging.

International Sidebar: Lessons from the UK and Australia

While this report focuses on the U.S., it is instructive to briefly consider what the U.S. glamping industry can learn from more mature markets abroad. Britain (UK/Europe) and Australia spearheaded the glamping trend in the 2000s and have developed models that U.S. operators and investors might emulate, even as market dynamics differ.

• Market Maturity and Product Diversity: The UK in particular integrated glamping into mainstream camping early on. Europe and the UK were “industry pioneers” in glamping, normalizing the concept well before it caught fire in North America. As a result, Europe accounts for roughly 35% of global glamping revenue in 2024, higher than North America’s ~25% share. This maturity means UK glamping consumers are quite discerning and competition is strong. U.S. developers can learn from the diverse accommodation typespopular in the UK – from insulated wooden pods and shepherd’s huts to treehouses and geodesic domes. These structures allow year-round operation in wet/cool climates, something U.S. glamp sites in the Pacific Northwest or Appalachians could adopt to extend their seasons. The UK’s use of farm-based glamping is also notable: many British farmers added 5–10 glamping units to diversify income. They benefited from relatively friendly planning allowances (e.g. certain temporary camping uses don’t require full permits) and strong domestic tourism demand. U.S. rural landowners likewise could partner with developers or use platforms like Hipcamp to pilot small-scale glamping, gradually scaling up. For lenders, the UK experience shows that even micro-scale glamping can be a viable business if done with quality – a lesson that underwriting shouldn’t dismiss “mom-and-pop” operations, as some have grown into robust enterprises.

• Professional Associations and Standards: The UK has established industry groups such as the Glamping Industry Trade Association (GITA) and well-attended Glamping Show conferences. These bodies have created best practice standards for safety, guest experience, and even accreditation. The U.S. is catching up (with the American Glamping Association forming), but adopting clear standards can enhance credibility. For example, UK glamping sites often adhere to holiday park safety rules by providing fire extinguishers at each unit, emergency contact info, etc. – simple steps that U.S. sites sometimes overlook. By learning from UK operators, U.S. developers can preempt regulatory issues and improve guest trust.

• Emphasis on Sustainability: Australian glamping, in particular, has thrived by emphasizing eco-tourism and sustainability. Iconic Australian glamping resorts like Longitude 131° at Uluru or Sal Salis at Ningaloo Reef operate in fragile environments with minimal ecological footprint – solar power, zero-waste principles, and deep community integration. This has elevated their brand (and allowed premium pricing). In the U.S., sustainability is increasingly a focus for park authorities and travelers; glamping projects that mirror these Australian practices (solar-powered tents, rainwater harvesting, authentic engagement with local culture) may find easier permitting and strong market reception. Additionally, Australia’s glamping market, though smaller in absolute size (estimated at ~$137 million in 2024), is growing fast (13–14% CAGR), often attached to upscale lodge companies. This suggests that high-value experiential travel – the kind Australia markets globally – dovetails with glamping. U.S. operators can similarly market glamping not just as an accommodation but as experiential travel packages (much like an African safari). Packaging guided activities with stays can boost revenues and differentiate offerings, a strategy long used in Australian eco-resorts.

• Technology and Distribution: Overseas markets have pioneered unique distribution channels for glamping. In Europe, dedicated booking sites (e.g. CoolCamping or Glamping.com) became popular, and many traditional tour operators include glamping in their catalogs. The U.S. is now seeing this (Glamping Hub, etc.), but another lesson is integration with travel agents and wholesalers. For instance, some UK glamping sites partner with vacation rental agencies or even airline holiday packages. U.S. glamping could reach new customer segments by similar tie-ups, learning from abroad how to cast a wider marketing net. Moreover, Europe’s longer history means there is more data on glamping performance – occupancy trends, guest demographics – which U.S. investors can study to inform underwriting assumptions (keeping in mind cultural differences). As an example, the UK has shown that demand is not only from young adults but also from families and older travelers seeking comfort, suggesting U.S. projects should design with a range of ages in mind.

In summary, international models teach U.S. glamping stakeholders the value of product innovation (pods, treehouses), quality and sustainability standards, and creative market positioning. The U.S. market can borrow these ideas while leveraging its own strengths (abundant land and diverse landscapes). Learning from the U.K.’s decade-plus of glamping evolution and Australia’s luxury eco-retreat successes can help American glamping ventures avoid pitfalls and elevate their offerings to world-class levels.

Conclusion

The U.S. glamping industry is evolving from a novelty into a sustainable hospitality segment. As this report illustrates, success in this space requires a deft balancing of regulatory compliance, thoughtful design, savvy financing, and experience-driven operations. Developers must navigate zoning and permits proactively – engaging local authorities and communities to smooth approvals, and building to code while preserving the natural allure that draws guests. ADA compliance is both a legal duty and an opportunity to widen the market; glamping that is inclusive will set itself apart and mitigate legal risks.

From a financial standpoint, creative capital stacking – blending SBA, USDA, and private funds – can make projects feasible and attractive, but all parties should rigorously vet feasibility and have contingency plans for the inherent seasonality and novelty risk that glamping carries. The profiles of Under Canvas, AutoCamp, and Collective Retreats show that there are multiple winning formulas, from rugged-luxe tents near national parks to design-centric trailer hotels. Each underscores the importance of branding and delivering on guest expectations. Notably, major travel companies (Hyatt, Hilton, Marriott) embracing alliances with glamping operators indicate increased institutional confidence in the sector. This bodes well for liquidity and consolidation down the line – today’s independent sites might be tomorrow’s acquisition targets for larger platforms or REITs specializing in experiential lodging.

For investors and lenders underwriting glamping ventures, key practical considerations emerge:

• Feasibility and Underwriting: Insist on detailed feasibility studies that account for realistic occupancy ramp-up, local competition (including traditional hotels and vacation rentals), and operational costs unique to glamping (e.g. tent maintenance, seasonal staffing). Examine the sponsor’s permits in hand and community support – entitlement delays have been a top cause of project failure. Underwrite to conservative occupancy in off-peak seasons and test DSCR under weather or park visitation downturn scenarios. But also recognize upside: well-run glamping resorts have achieved hotel-like RevPARs with leaner structures, providing attractive ROI if executed properly.

• Risk Mitigation: Encourage or require sponsors to have a strong marketing plan and reservation strategy pre-opening – whether partnering with an outdoor travel agency or leveraging platforms – to accelerate bookings. Check that ADA and safety measures are budgeted; an early ADA lawsuit or an accident can severely damage a nascent business. Consider the management plan: will the operator be the developer or a third-party specialist? Many lenders may take comfort if a known operator (like Under Canvas or a KOA franchise, etc.) is involved or if key team members have hospitality backgrounds.

• Site Development Considerations: Glamping resorts often have longer development timelines than meets the eye – installing infrastructure on remote sites can be complex (wells, septic fields, access roads) and sourcing unique units can involve international suppliers or custom builds. Thus, construction contingency should be healthy (15%+). On the positive side, the incremental expansion capability is a benefit – many glampgrounds can start with say 10 units and add more organically as cash flow permits. Lenders might structure facilities with future funding tranches tied to successful phase-one performance, reducing initial exposure and incentivizing ramp-up.

Looking outward, as U.S. glamping continues to expand, it may increasingly resemble its overseas counterparts – more standardized, perhaps even franchised, with a focus on sustainability and unique local integration. The opportunity for investors is to get in early on a high-growth segment (estimated ~12% annual growth in U.S. glamping demand) with real assets at its core. Caution is warranted, but as this report outlines, there are now roadmaps to follow and metrics emerging to guide decisions.

The glamour of glamping is that it sells a feeling – adventure without sacrifice – but delivering that promise requires solid groundwork in compliance, financing, and operations. By learning from established examples and adhering to professional standards, new glamping projects can achieve both memorable guest experiences and sound financial outcomes, making the sector a credible and exciting arena for investment and development in the years ahead.

August 10, 2025 by a collective of authors at MMCG Invest, LLC, glamping and STR feasibility study consultants

Sources:

• SBA

• USDA

• MMCG Database

• AutoCamp ADA Suites:

• Goodwin (AutoCamp $115M raise)