The Elephant Odyssey exhibit complex at the San Diego Zoo has been the subject of much zoo chatting here. I went back through the old threads and found several pre-opening posts speculating about it and several post-opening posts and an excellent quality geomorph review (http://www.zoochat.com/22/review-elephant-odyssey-san-diego-zoo-115715/) describing it and giving his perspective. Now that the exhibit has been open for a few years I wanted to revisit the subject of the exhibit's theme, whether the theme works, and how this elephant exhibit compares to other elephant exhibits in the current wave of new elephant exhibits (and associated exhibits if they are part of an ecosystem theme like Dallas's African savanna). From reviewing posts I know that many people here think that the Pleistocene California theme for Elephant Odyssey is a stupid mess. One Zoochatter whom I deeply respect nominated Elephant Odyssey as one of the biggest bombs in zoo design history. I think that Elephant Odyssey is an innovative conservation concept that is a bold attempt to advance how conservation messages can be transmitted through zoos. Whether the message has worked, I'm not sure. The basic existing exhibit themes that I am aware of in zoo elephant exhibits are either the forests of Asia or the African savannas. The only exhibit that I am aware of that portrays African forest elephants and their role in the ecosystem is the Congo Gorilla Forest at the Bronx Zoo, and they do that through film and interpretive elements with no real forest elephants. San Diego Zoo has presented an out of the box theme for its elephant exhibit. The theme is conceptual rather than geographic. I would summarize the theme as “Large megafauna used to roam California and much of the planet. Most of this megafauna went extinct 10,000 years ago, likely due to human causes. Relatives of these species still live on Earth, but we need to help conserve them if we want them to continue to live here and not go the way of their Pleistocene relatives”. This narrative is told through a mix of live animal exhibits, life size statues of the Pleistocene relatives of the exhibit animals, and interpretive graphics and displays. The first time that I walked through the Elephant Odyssey complex I walked through backwards of the intended narrative route, and I did think it was a narrative mess. The signs and interpretive exhibits seemed jumbled. When I went back through the intended way by entering at the fossil pit, the narrative took hold and I really understood the story that the zoo was trying to tell. This is a narrative that is very important for giraffe conservation also and I try and incorporate it when I give talks, so it is possible that I am particularly sensitive to it. I am wondering if others who have experienced Elephant Odyssey have “gotten” the conservation narrative that it is telling and if it worked for you? Is there a plurality of opinion in the professional zoo world on whether Elephant Odyssey was a conceptual success on any level? Does anyone know if the zoo has done any research on whether visitors are “getting” the exhibit in any meaningful way, and what the results are if they exist? There are excellent new elephant exhibits out there with geographic themes like the African savanna at Dallas which integrates giraffes, antelope, crowned cranes, etc. and the Asian elephant exhibit at Smithsonian National which is connected to their other excellent Asian ecosystem exhibit with the pandas, giant salamander, sloth bears, etc. The disparate collection populating Elephant Odyssey with species from around the world (Asian and African elephants, jaguars, secretary birds, South American tapirs, capybaras, etc.) has raised much derision here, but I would argue that it was a bold out-of-the box choice that does succeed if one buys the narrative success of the exhibit, which I do. I would enjoy hearing from others on whether the narrative works for them relative to the geographic-based themes of other zoo elephant experiences.
I have been one of the harsher critics of EO since it opened. When I had initially been told of the proposed exhibit narrative, I was both impressed and hopeful that San Diego was doing something innovative and meaningful. My criticsms have all been about the execution of the exhibit, not its underlying conceptual framework, which was brilliant. I would question whether anyone other than zoo nerds like ourselves actually get the narrative, regardless of direction of approach. I've expressed my disappointment with many aspects of the finished product, so I won't repeat them here. It's sort of like when Hollywood decides to make a film of a favorite book that turns out to be a bomb--great material wasted.
Yes and it is available on the AZA website (Members Only. Honors & Awards - Exhibit Award - Elephant Odyssey). And it appears that the answer is no in regards to the Pleistocene theme. However guests do appear to understand the conservation messages stressed in the graphics - but these messages are also found in graphics throughout the zoo.
I was not too thrilled with the exhibit concept when it was first announced, I was more glad that the elephants would be getting new exhibits. The species list baffled me a little as it seemed like a weird mix. Technically any animal could be used to say they have relatives in the Pleistocene. The narrative with EO is really lacking on execution. The tar pit is pretty much a joke, and I actually find the signs about local museums and dig sites on the opposite wall more interesting. The part where the narrative is the clearest are where there are docents who can physically tell people, and the display coming out of the tar pit with all the images of animals from the Pleistocene is rather nice to get an idea for what animals were around that time. Aside from that the distinction between the animals and the Pleistocene is really lost. Here's basically what I think about their displays and such. Message boards: All of them practically look the same and do not draw people to read them. Some of them have useless information and I have to force myself to read them. Only ones I want to read are because I wanted to see how they tied something with the theme (Madagascar plants) and because I wanted to find what something was (Pleistocene fruit plants). Sculptures: I actually like the appearance of them, the connection between them and their relative animal probably is completely lost to the average visitor. Mostly because they are not placed well within the context of the exhibit, and people cannot see the resemblance. I have heard of people expecting to see those animals in the exhibit. Landscaping: The landscape does not suggest the landscape of California or Prehistoric California at all. Its mostly stereotypical drought tolerant plants than natives. Randomly placed animal bones: Right, works just like the concrete snow in PBP makes it an arctic tundra. (sarcasm) Quick run down of the exhibits. Mostly underlaying issues, which dont help the exhibit at all. Sloth: was nice at first to see it up in the trees, now the tall tree and sloth are gone, has dik diks where the connection with the theme is a stretch. Lion: Totally small, the lions should be moved. I cant see how any exhibit would encourage enrichment of the lions Jaguar: Very good, lots of vertical space and foliage, the water is a plus, but I have not seen the live fish launcher used at all. (I or someone should ask a keeper about that) Mixed SA Exhibit: Awkward exhibit space, the pool and waterfall are great, and the hillside is acceptable. Sightlines into and beyond the exhibit are poorly managed. The glass viewing area posses no real value. Its not a complete pit because of the slope. Secretary Bird: A simple aviary, poor for the species, would have been nice for other species with slightly better landscaping. CA herp exhibit: Nicely landscaped and has Pond Turtles, which helps their conservation efforts and is a rare local species. I think all zoos should try to feature local species, esp ones that are hard to see. Would have been nice to see all the other planned species in there and the exhibit is currently lacking in maintenance. Pronghorn and camel: Odd mix of species, I like the sloping and the sightlines into the exhibit. I think its a classy way to exhibit hoofstock on the base level. Sightlines beyond and the mock-rock could have been better. Barn Animal area: No. Condors and Rattlesnakes: Probably the best exhibits, condors could use more perching space and the rattlesnake burrows are drab. Elephant exhibit: No landscaping, the utilitrees are a great concept, and I am still waiting on that concept to finally come through with the plants on the top. Too linear of an exhibit space to effectively work with. There are some good sightlines that give good views of the elephants. The pond is great. I do not mind the barn, although, it would be better if it meshed with the landscape better, I think being able to showcase the keepers interacting with the elephants is a plus. Overall: The theme fails in execution, and I am not sure the concept was that good to begin with. I would have rather stuck with a geographical or taxonomical theme, but gone further in-depth than "African Savannah" or "Asian Rainforest." I dont think wrapping an entire exhibit about an animal's ancestors is an acceptable theme for a zoo as most people wont understand it. And even if people understand, "These animals are relatives of animals that once roamed through Southern California," then what? At least geographical exhibits introduce conservation efforts, species, and cultures within a specific area, which I think is twenty times more educational. EO casts the net too widely and tries to draw too many lines that just get jumbled up. Second of all the space is horribly managed. It has already been said that the exhibit reads rather differently from different ends. The exhibits are just randomly scattered throughout and the elephant exhibit is too linear so it takes up a lot of pockets of space which could have been used for better exhibits. It would have been better to just make the elephant exhibit take up half of the EO area instead of trying to stick so many small-ish exhibits in with it. The exhibit is really successful in animal husbandry though. The off-exhibit areas are well done, which is a huge benefit for the keepers and their ability to manage and care for the elephants. It makes their job a lot easier too, and having that doesnt have to be at the cost of exhibit aesthetics or the budget.
All I have to contribute is about the concept itself. When I first heard about it, I loved it. The (relatively) nearby La Brea Tar Pits is one of my favorite places to go, and thought the showcase of several extinct North American megafauna 'cousins' was a great idea. However, after I've visited EO a number of times and thinking it over, I think this was the wrong direction for a zoo. For one, the SDZ is a zoo and people expect to see animals that currently exist. People that go to the La Brea Tar Pits expect to see mammoths and saber toothed cats (or fossil/recreated versions anyway). Putting a long extinct animal theme with living animals is a bit too confusing. If a museum like the LBTP decided to open up a small zoo next door (obviously impossible for LBTP, but I digress) that was essentially the same exact idea as EO, I think it would be much better. People would go to the museum expecting to see fossils and extinct animals, and would be far more likely to understand the EO concept
I know I'm super late in posting this, but I was lurking and thought I'd throw in a comment/question of my own. My boyfriend and I visit the Safari Park every year for my birthday in June and the zoo every year for Christmas. It seems like the elephant enclosure at the Safari Park is MUCH more enriching for the elephants and as a result the elephants actually seem to do more than stand around and eat. We've seen them in the water, interacting, and walking around in addition to eating. At the zoo, it's like all the elephants do is stand around and eat. Is this due to their boring enclosure that doesn't seem to promote any activity on their part? Or is the herd at the zoo more of a "retirement" herd?
I think you probably hit on a major reason for the difference. The elephants at the zoo are all middle aged or elderly while the Safari Park herd replicates a wild elephant family unit as much as possible in a zoo. It might be analogous to the difference in activity levels seen at a senior citizen center vs. an elementary or high school (not to stereotype seniors, many of whom are more active than younger people).
I loved the concept but its still poorly executed. Especially the sightlines. I am not sure who designed the exhibit but Dallas/Birmingham have built elephant exhibits with better sightlines (and without a ton of unsightly wire messing up sightlines). Why does such a respected institution like San Diego have trouble with something simple like that?
Simply put, Elephant Odyssey is located in a long narrow strip of ground and it was deemed impossible to control the sight lines, so they didn't even try.
So a world class zoo half assed an innovative concept? No wonder California is in such shape if the San Diego Zoo of all places can't execute a decent concept. I've always held it as the gold standard of Zoos in my mind.
