Reclaiming the Don: An Environmental History of Toronto’s Don River Valley by Jennifer L. Bonnell (review)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Reclaiming the Don: An Environmental History of Toronto’s Don River Valley by Jennifer L. Bonnell Mark Cioc-Ortega Bonnell, Jennifer L. – Reclaiming the Don: An Environmental History of Toronto’s Don River Valley. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014. Pp. 316. The Don is a small river, just 24 miles long with a 139 square mile catchment area, best known as the river that flows through Toronto, Canada’s largest metropolis. Its headwaters are in the Oak Ridges Moraine of Ontario and it empties into Lake Ontario. Nearly 90 percent of the Don’s basin has been usurped for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes, making it one of the most urbanized (1.2 million people) and environmentally endangered watersheds in North America today. Yet the river’s small size, the author argues, has tended to mask its central role in the making of modern Ontario. Whereas nearly everyone understands the importance of the Mississippi to New Orleans, the Ruhr to Duisburg, and the Huangpu to Shanghai, few have grasped the importance of the Don to Toronto’s history. Reclaiming the Don covers a time span of two centuries, from the founding of York (modern-day Toronto) in the 1790s to the most recent urban renewal projects of the early twenty first century. As the city expanded decade after decade, city planners and engineers gradually transformed the landscape of the Don valley to fit the ever-changing needs of urban dwellers. Hills were levelled and flood plains reclaimed; the main riverbed was canalized and branches removed; river water was pumped out for use in industry and then returned to its bed as a polluted waste. Each chapter of the book focuses on a different facet of these transformations: the creation of an industrial wasteland on the lower reaches of the Don during the mid- to late nineteenth century; the implementation of river improvement projects during the early twentieth century; the emergence of a “hobo jungle” of outcasts and unemployed on the urban outskirts, before and during the Great Depression; the partially successful efforts to restore and clean up the river during the mid-twentieth century; and current efforts to re-naturalize small portions of the waterway and delta. [End Page 566] That the Don jumpstarted the town of York in the 1790s can scarcely be doubted: its high hills offered good conditions for water mills and its flood plain offered fertile space for agriculture and urban expansion. In the mid-nineteenth century, its broad lower banks facilitated Toronto’s industrial development, even as its measured flow made it a relatively easy river to manipulate and control, albeit one more suitable as an industrial sink than as a hydroelectric producer or transport route. Over time the river became heavily polluted, even if Torontonians did manage to avoid having their river become the poster child of environmental neglect—à la Ohio’s Cuyahoga River, famous for periodically bursting into flames—through some timely cleanup and restoration projects in the mid- to late twentieth century (though it is worth pointing out that the author begins her book with a hilarious account of Princess Margaret’s visit to Toronto’s foul-smelling river on July 31, 1958). Charles Sauriol played a big role in these important restoration projects, as the author makes clear in a chapter devoted solely to him and the Don Valley Conservation Association that he co-founded. Despite the title, this book is less about the ecological restoration of the Don than about the environmental consequences of an ever-expanding Toronto cityscape. What has defined (and confined) Toronto’s river the most for the past half century has been the Don Valley Parkway (DVP), constructed between 1958 and 1966, at a time when, paradoxically, conservationist sentiment was running strong. The DVP is Toronto’s only major north-south expressway and it is now so thoroughly jammed with cars and trucks (“Don Valley Parking Lot” is its nickname) that it is hard to imagine what driving in Toronto would be like had it never been built. But its construction, as the author notes, also killed the dream of restoring the Don: For urban ecologists seeking to revitalize a neglected urban...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».