Horticulture as Therapy in Toronto: Unearthing Healing and Wellness in a Post-Industrial Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores how community service providers in Toronto are using Horticultural therapy to engage with local ecological landscape to support client rehabilitation and wellness.A qualitative Deep Ecology theoretical framework through an inductive, revised, grounded theory research methodology was used.This research hopes to further the understanding of how community program service providers could facilitate therapeutic processes through engaging with ecology in Toronto's urban landscape.This study strived to deepen understanding of benefits in the use of land and environment for community and therapeutic programming in an urban setting.Data was collected through semi-structured, interviews with six service providers who are facilitators or developers of wellness programs which offer forms of horticulture for therapeutic benefits.Subsequent questions inquired how service providers see urban issues as intersecting into their work in the metropolitan context of Toronto.Providers expressed how their work in urban environments enables, in their words, the creation of natural oases.Adaptability is a strong theme evident in the year-round horticultural programming available in Toronto's temperate climate.An all-encompassing age range (0-95) of Torontonians is serviced through local HT.A significant diversity of populations was found to access needs-specific horticultural programs.Connectedness appeared as a strong guiding principle in local horticultural wellness programming.Varied critical perspectives were offered by the professionals on the distancing or entrenchment into the naming of their programs as a 'therapy'.Food production in horticulture and its power of bringing people and cultures together in Toronto's metropolitan environment emerged as a theme.The use of natural waterways is a strong practice in Toronto's landscape for counselling of trauma, grief, death and life-changing experiences.Implications for broader social work practice, theory, and research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".