Reading an Urban Palimpsest: How the Gradual Loss of an Urban Stream Impacts Urban Form's Connections and Ecosystem Functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fluvial reclamation to facilitate urban development leads to culverting, hence, a loss of urban streams. Using the palimpsest analogy, we examine how the Amman Stream in Amman (Jordan) historically provided regulatory and socio-cultural ecosystem services through its socio-spatial (longitudinal, lateral, and vertical) connections. We then explore the impact of the stream's culverting, partially in 1967 then completely in 1997, on these connections and, consequently, on ecosystem services. To overcome data paucity, our methodology relied on constructing spatial data by georeferencing and digitizing aerial photos and satellite images (from 1953, 1975, 1992, and 2000) using ArcGIS. We augmented our data with archival research (historic and contemporary documents and maps), an online survey among Amman's residents, andin situobservations and photography. The results reveal striking contrasts between the historic and contemporary configuration of urban form vis-à-vis the Amman Stream. Throughout its early urban history during the Classical and early Islamic periods, the urban form elements reflected reverence and prudence toward the Amman Stream as manifested in the investment in water infrastructure and the alignment of thoroughfares, civic monuments, and bridges that collectively capitalized on the land relief (the strath) and established strong connections with the Amman Stream, maximizing, in the process, its regulatory and socio-cultural services. In contrast, the contemporary urban form replaced the stream with car-oriented roads, hence, eradicated its regulatory services and replaced its socio-spatial connections with urban socio-economic and cultural fissures. Accordingly, we propose to daylight (de-culvert) the Amman Stream to restore its regulatory and socio-cultural services and its socio-spatial connections. We substantiate the feasibility of daylighting through: (1) morphological analysis that reveals that roads cover most of the stream; (2) the survey's findings that indicate public support; and (3) the cascading benefits for the larger watershed in a water insecure region.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".