Here, I define “safari” in a broad sense as wildlife-focused tourism, including but not limited to birdwatching, wildlife viewing（mammals）, and diving experiences. These activities typically require relatively high biomass and intact habitats.
“Extremely long history of human activity” refers to regions where the original integrity of habitats and the composition of flora and fauna have been fundamentally shaped by thousands of years of human influence, including extensive hunting and large-scale habitat transformation that has significantly depleted wildlife resources. Such regions include Western Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia.
For the purpose of this discussion, I will temporarily exclude Southeast Asia, the Americas, Oceania, and sparsely populated regions of Africa. These areas still retain some relatively intact wildlife populations and even truly pristine wilderness remnants, since large-scale human ecological disruption there generally occurred only within the past 1000–500 years, meaning their ecological foundations are degraded but not completely collapsed.
Given this, in these deeply human-modified regions (Western Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia), is safari-style tourism already essentially impossible? From what I understand, South Asia has a relatively well-developed wildlife viewing industry. Apart from that, are there any other large-scale safari-like systems in these regions? Why is South Asia, despite being a densely populated region, so exceptional in this regard?
Birdwatching can be done anywhere there are birds, which is nearly anywhere in the world. In the core of large cities you may only find a handful of common species, but the same is true in harsh polar or desert regions.
Diving generally depends on having water that is clear, deep, and safe enough to swim in. I imagine the latter point is mainly affected by the pollution regulations and enforcement of the government whose jurisdiction the watershed is within. Many water bodies where people catch and eat fish from would probably also be moderately interesting to dive in.
“Wildlife viewing” is the most vague; technically I am doing that when I admire the house centipedes, silverfish, and spiders I find in my basement. I think you can do that anywhere by most definitions of the phrase. But to me the word “safari” means staying in a vehicle and driving around an expansive natural area where you are likely to see megafauna. Naturally that can only happen in places which have megafauna, and in the regions you listed those are generally going to be where there are rewilding projects happening. I’m not familiar enough with any of those regions to know if any of them have rewilding projects with drive-through access. The rewilding projects I’ve heard of in Europe gave me the impression of being very keen to avoid disturbance to the animals from tourists (e.g. large fenced off forests with minimal trails or roads through them).
I regularly do quite a bit of birding in urban areas, where there is literally zero original natural habitat, and everything - absolutely everything - is the result of man’s changing of the environment. Like wide multi-lane highways, huge parking lots, big hotel buildings, shopping centers, etc. With areas of brush and vegetation in the “in-between” areas that have at some point been completely razed and then had invasive exotic plants grow up to replace what was there originally. And yet these areas often have a broad diversity of bird species, that can help me increase my overall species count for the state or county that they are in. Ditto for insects that are utilizing the haphazard mass of mostly invasive non-native plants. So yes, eco-tourism is possible in these landscapes that are completely dominated by human development.
I might have overlooked the format of tourism here. The bird-watching, wildlife-watching（mammal）, and diving I mentioned refer to commercialized, industrial-scale tourism activities, rather than independent travel. Of course, the requirements you mentioned are indeed essential. However, I believe the fundamental point is that the safari tourism industry relies heavily on the high visibility of wildlife. It must be high enough to ensure that even ordinary tourists have a highly rewarding experience.
Indeed, birding is one of the most accessible forms of nature observation, requiring the least specific habitat conditions. It can be done anywhere from the tropics to the polar regions, and even on the high seas. However, commercial birding safaris are a different story. The objective requirement for this industry is high avian diversity or distinct local endemism. Regions that fit this profile, as far as I know, include New Guinea, Costa Rica, and classic safari hotspots like East Africa and South Africa.
I have been having trouble understanding your original post. It is not clear what exactly you are asking about, nor if you have an objective for starting this thread. Is it that you are interested in starting a business where you guide people for seeing nature, and you want to know if such a business would be viable in your part of the world?
There are numerous companies advertising wildlife viewing tours in Qinghai, Tibet, and Sichuan. I’ve linked a few below. Some companies seem to be Chinese and some seem to be Western. In fact, one company offers tours specifically focused on trying to view a wild giant panda that seem to not be strictly legal–it says it’s a business organised by the villagers they wish to keep discreet from the government.
This other trip report says they used thermal scopes to find a wild giant panda: China-May-2024.pdf
The market for birding tours relies on a combination of factors. Relatively wealthy people who don’t have a lot of spare time for travelling are willing to pay for a birding guide in places with a concentration of species that they can’t easily find on their own.
When I travel I try to do a mix; in areas with a lot of species where I can’t manage the logistics to see them then I’ll hire a guide, but I’ll try to see as much as I can without. I think a large part of the reason for hiring guides in many places of the world is as much to do with logistics (unfamiliar roads, culture, language, etc.) as with actually finding or knowing the birds. In Europe or North America those other aspects are less pressing.
I can only speak for North America but I know there is a decent market for tours in southeast Arizona, southern Texas, southern Florida, and for pelagic birding tours on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. People are willing to travel across the continent to those locations because they have unique species, and enough unique species that it’s too much work to find them yourself. Most other locations don’t have a distinct enough diversity of species; people have likely already seen those species elsewhere, or otherwise the birds are easy enough for people to find on their own.
Where I am in Ontario there isn’t a lot of distinctive diversity so there’s a limited market for tours. I know of one birder who makes a job out of tours and a couple others who do it part-time. I’m guessing the clients are a mix of foreigners on a tight schedule who are visiting the area for other reasons but also want to see as many species as possible, as well as casual birders who aren’t willing to put in the effort to see more difficult species on their own. Most local birders would rather spend more time looking on their own than pay someone else to show them birds. The same goes for non-birds, although maybe there are many guided tours for finding Moose in Algonquin Park that I’m just not aware of.
there is plemty of places in Europe you can go see surviving megafauna. It does not look like African safari, as the animals are much more timid and cannot take the safari crowds, but you can definitely go see bears and wolves, in some places lynx; also wild boars, red deer, dame deer, roe deer, and may other small animals, and there are; in places where there are still enough of them, companies offering wildlife tours.