Abstract
Keywords
Analytical Cemetery Landscapes – the Conditions for a Long-Term Comparison
Societal change is reflected in our shifting attitudes to death and in the burial cultures associated with it (Walter, 2012). A town’s policy toward cemeteries is thus confronted with the challenge of responding adequately to modernising trends. Landscape planners and architects are increasingly engaging with environmentally friendly, citizen-friendly cemetery designs as a special instance of urban green spaces (Dlugozima & Kosiacka-Berk, 2020). But the multifunctionality of cemeteries (Säumel et al., 2023) harbours within it the potential for social conflict. According to Woodthorpe (2011), cemeteries may be characterised as ‘analytical landscapes’ on an emotional, commercial and community level. These levels are interlinked, as Woodthorpe explains by offering an example: “Concerned about the long term financial future of the site (cemetery) … The staff … have made moves to address how they could promote the cemetery as both a provider for bereavement services and a wider local community resource for education and recreation.” (Woodthorpe, 2011, p. 267). More recent studies have also considered the ‘demand’ side, in other words the user perspective, and have explored the acceptance or rejection of alternative uses for cemeteries (e.g. Al-Akl et al., 2018; Evensen et al., 2017; Goh & Ching, 2020; Grabalov, 2018).
The intensity of the conflict between the ‘cemetery as a place of mourning’ and the ‘cemetery as a resource for recreation and leisure’ depends on
The most important factor in the utilisation of the land is the cremation rate. Urn burials only take up a fraction of the cemetery space needed for traditional burials. The higher the cremation rate, the more this leads to an ‘emptying’ of the cemeteries. The cremation rate drops in those countries where the proportion of the population that is Roman Catholic is higher (Maddrell, 2023), but is high in the case of Switzerland, standing at 85% as of 2019. Since the turn of the 21st century there has been a downward trend in the number of traditional burials. (Figure 1). Burials city of Bern 1900–2014.
If we take a Catholic country such as Poland as an example, cremations accounted for just 24% of all deaths in 2016 (Cremation Society of Great Britain). This is in turn reflected in the amount of green spaces being freed up in cemeteries (Image 1). Powazski-cemetery Warsaw/Poland. Source: Warsaw tourist office. https://warsawtour.pl/de/powazki-friedhof/.
In countries like Switzerland where it is not compulsory to bury the dead in cemeteries, this ‘emptying’ process (Image 2) is further encouraged by the existence of cheaper options for burial outside cemeteries. Bümpliz cemetery, Bern, Switzerland. Source: photo Franziska Rothenbühler; Berner Zeitung. https://www.bernerzeitung.ch/berner-gemeinden-werten-friedhoefe-auf-695574423314.
The parameters are thus clear for the case study presented below on the alternative use of the cemeteries of the city of Bern, and allow us to situate it in an international context. The following analysis focuses on the city of Bern’s perspective on the development of what visitors to its cemeteries imagined for the use of these spaces in 2002 and again in 2021, when also non-visitors were included. There have until now been no long-term comparisons, and these have been possible in the present case only thanks to fortunate circumstances (the detailed research report and the evaluation tools from 2002 are still available). The pre-history of the project is as follows.
In 2002, the project Sepulkraldesign in der Modellregion Bern (‘Sepulchral design in the model region of Bern’) was set up at the Bern University of Applied Sciences. Its aim was “to provide an empirical basis for the current debates on the use of these public spaces (cemeteries) and to outline in greater detail the expectations of cemetery visitors” (Kretz, 2003; project summary). The 2002 study raised a specific question regarding the extent to which people might be willing to use cemeteries as public spaces, and also addressed their putative wishes regarding burials, funeral services and the design of gravestones. The results of that study were set out in a detailed final report that provided a stimulus for further planning and attracted media attention (Kretz, 2003).
In their conclusion, the authors stated that this was the first time that Bern’s cemetery visitors had been asked for their opinion. Their study was undertaken in the spirit of a client-oriented cemetery policy that put both handed-down regulations and current offerings to the test. They identified a leitmotif running through the responses, namely the existence of tension between the collective on the one hand (whose public-orientated norms regarded cemeteries as a coherent, harmonious unit) and the wishes of the cemetery users along with the group interests of those involved in the funeral business on the other.
Over the ensuing two decades, the problem of cemeteries acquired further momentum. This was in part because of shifting burial preferences, an increase in religious and cultural diversity, but above all on account of a growing potential for conflict between different user groups. This conflict was already foreseeable back in 2002 and is even reflected in the title of the final report at that time: ‘Cemeteries for strolling or for mourning?’ The discussions about alternative uses for cemeteries reached a critical point in 2021 in view of the city’s medium-term plans to convert the Bümpliz Cemetery into a park. This conflict in the municipality and was analysed in greater detail that same year by means of a representative telephone survey of 519 residents of the city of Bern (Klingemann, 2022). This survey additionally addressed topics that had already been addressed in the survey of 2002. Besides exploring people’s tolerance towards the multifunctional redesign and use of urban green spaces, it was also possible for the first time – at least to a certain extent – to make comparisons between people’s opinions two decades apart: about their reasons for visiting the cemetery, about their needs and degree of satisfaction as users of the space in question, and about their attitude towards the alternatives available apart from burial in a cemetery. The present study can thus offer an overall picture of these shifting dynamics from the perspective of cemetery visitors, and against the background of innovations that have been implemented at the three Bernese cemeteries over the last two decades.
Methods, Data
The
The
Finally, it should be noted that the changes observed below that had taken place between the two survey dates of 2002 and 2021 can essentially be traced back to sociographic changes in the composition of the cemetery’s clientele (the age effect) that is independent of the shift in societal attitudes towards death (the cohort/generation effect) and also, ultimately, to the innovations that were implemented at the cemeteries
Results
Visitor Profile
Sociodemographic Profiles of Cemetery Visitors 2002 and 2021.
Legend: (3) 2002: estimated age group; 2021: exact age; (4) 2002: Cemetery where interview took place; 2021: crossed or visited at least one Bern cemetery during the last two years. (5) 2001: «Do you live close to a cemetery?’ 2021: «how do you reach the cemetery usually (on foot, other means of transportation).
Visitor Requirements and Expectations
Visitor Motivation, Reasons for Visiting
“How Often Have You Visited the Cemetery Because of …”.
aThe research report 2003 (no primary data) indicates only a summarized category ‘rarely to often’. As to the 2021 survey (primary data available), ‘leisurely walk’ also ranks in top position with 19% of respondents indicating ‘often’.
Attitudes to Specific Alternative Uses
As the title of the 2002 report on the results of the initial survey intimated (‘Cemeteries for strolling or for mourning?’), planners were already interested in the extent to which people would accept alternative uses of cemeteries as urban green spaces, and what scope might exist for extending such alternatives. Visitors were accordingly asked to give their opinion on a list of assorted activities and services at the cemetery – such as how appropriate or inappropriate they found them. These questions were largely replicated in the follow-up survey of 2021 and were also expanded to include several further aspects. Our comparative analysis therefore focuses on whether the extent of people’s acceptance of alternative uses has changed from 2002 to 2021 and, linked with this, whether there have been any shifts in how such acceptance might be linked to motive-specific visitor frequency.
In our comparative interpretation of the results, we have to take into account any changes that have already been realised by the cemetery management during the period in question. The Head of Cemeteries & City Gardens provided us with the appropriate information and commented on the list of alternative uses from the perspective of “what had been significantly altered or introduced at the three cemeteries between September 2002 and the time of the survey in July/August 2021”. These comments will be incorporated as background information in our below comparison.
Approval of Specific Leisure Activities and Options on Bern Cemeteries 2002 and 2021.
The dynamics of change may be described individually as follows:
Whereas 27% of visitors in 2002 found
In second place in the dynamics of change is an increase of 27% in the acceptance of ‘
‘
In 2002, 14% of people felt that it was fine to set up picnic areas, but 39% were in favour of ‘
In the 2002 survey, people were also asked if they would be in favour of creating cycle paths. Eleven percent said ‘yes’, and by 2021, more than twice as many (23%) said they’d generally approve. In fact,
The report on the results of 2002 states with regard to changes of use: “The level of approval is high for those proposed changes in use that are quiet and passive in nature, but still remain below 50%” (Kretz, 2003, p. 16). The follow-up survey of 2021 puts this finding into perspective, demonstrating significantly higher approval rates of over 50%.
Finally, if the group of
A further step in the analysis involved once more examining the extent to which an acceptance of specific alternative uses is related to the respective frequency of visits to a cemetery. Corresponding correlation analyses of the 2002 survey came to the conclusion “that visitors to gravesites perceive every other use as less appropriate than do other visitors to the cemetery. With regard to tolerance for ‘grazing sheep’ and ‘cultural events’, there were somewhat smaller differences of opinion” (Kretz, 2003, p. 24).
Declining Opposition of Grave Visitors Towards Alternative Use Covariations (Pearson Corr.) 2002 and 2021.
Legend: ** sig.< .001; * sig. < .05.
Secondly, visitors to gravesites were the focus of the 2002 analysis, but 2021 saw major changes in the relative importance of their reasons for visiting the cemetery. In the frequency ranking for people’s motives for coming to the cemetery, ‘visiting a grave’ drops from 80% to 63%; the frontrunner in 2021 is ‘taking a walk’, with 83% (2002: 63%), followed by ‘contemplating nature’ with 76% (2002: 69%) (see Table 2 above). These motives do not imply any conflict with the aforementioned options for change, with the exception of a mild rejection of lively and quiet social games (rp = −.12; rp = −.11) (cf. Table 4 cols 3 and 8). These shifts in the motivation profile of visitors indicate a reduction in any resistance to reutilisation plans at the cemeteries.
General Customer Satisfaction With Cemetery Services and Perceived Restorativeness
In the 2002 survey, 90% of respondents indicated a generally high degree of satisfaction with the various services offered at the cemetery, including planting at gravesites and burial ceremonies (Kretz, 2003, p. 25). Only 12% were dissatisfied with the range of plants offered, and found that the signage system for finding other, older, ‘famous’ gravesites was in need of improvement (Kretz, 2003, pp. 25, 26).
While this aspect was not assigned the same weight in the 2021 survey, the latter asked the open question “What was lacking on your last cemetery visit?”, which we might use for an approximate comparison. 88% of visitors stated that nothing had been lacking, which overall reflects a relatively high level of satisfaction with the cemeteries, as had been the case in 2002. The remaining 12% of visitors in 2021 wanted improvements similar to those requested in 2002. At the Schosshalden Cemetery, people primarily mentioned problems with the infrastructure (benches, parking spaces, opening hours, a ban on dogs), while assessments of the other two cemeteries focused on aspects such as planting, signage and burial issues (e.g. new themed graves).
What has contributed to the overall satisfaction of cemetery visitors from 2002 to 2021, and what has helped to increase their degree of satisfaction?
Subscales and Items of the Perceived Short Restorativeness Scale.
Table 5 (cols 2–4) indicates an overall high restorativeness value for Bern’s cemeteries, especially with regard to ‘coherence’ (mean values 4 and above). Sub-aspects of ‘fascination’, on the other hand, are somewhat weaker (‘curiosity’ and ‘interesting things’ having x = 2.89 and x = 3.22 respectively).
The next step was to examine the extent to which the frequency of the visit for the reason in question was associated with the perceived degree of restorativeness.
Covariance (Pearson Corr) of Perceived Restorativeness (WE12) and Frequency of Reason to Visit Among Cemetery Visitors (Durings Last Three Months) 2021 (n = 227).
At first glance, this finding is consistent with the results of the study by Lai et al. (2020), who compared the perceived restorativeness value of parks and cemeteries in Scotland and similarly found that environmental characteristics had no impact on perceived restorativeness among cemetery visitors who had a loved one buried there. By contrast, the follow-up study of 2021 presented here shows no differences in perceived restorativeness between people with a loved one buried in the cemetery (n = 117) and those without (n = 94); they have almost identical mean values (x = 3.56, sd = .757 and 3.55, sd = .659 respectively).
These apparent contradictions are resolved, however, if the frequency of visits is understood as a multiplier for exposure to the cemetery environment and categorised accordingly, depending on the reason for the visit. Restorative effects can only be amplified when the person concerned is moving about in the natural environment. In their study on gardens, Bauer et al. (2021) found “that moving about is particularly important for high stress levels, while both moving about and spending time in green spaces are important for reducing moderate stress” (Bauer et al., 2021, p. 29).
A glance at Table 6 shows that the more people visit the cemetery for purposes of movement (strolling etc.), the more they become aware of its restorativeness. A holistic perception of the cemetery environment is thus barely favoured by short or occasional, ‘stationary’ visits. Work breaks, using the cemetery as a transit route and visits to graves can be categorised as belonging to this group.
From a planning perspective, there is a practical aspect to asking what characteristics of the natural environment have an impact on the perceived restorativeness. Research findings have indicated that biodiversity (e.g. the number of plant species present) (Kowarik et al., 2016; Massoni et al., 2018; Young et al., 2020), good paths, the ‘pleasantness’ of the landscape, aesthetics and safety (Lai et al., 2020) all have a positive influence on perceived restorativeness.
Cemetery Burials and Alternatives
The research report on the visitor survey of 2002 already reached the conclusion that “The results reveal a considerable interest in new forms of burial, also outside the cemetery” (Kretz, 2003, p. 44). Participants were given a selection of possible answers (with multiple answers possible) to the question “When you think of your own burial, how appropriate would you find the following types of burial?”. A ‘tree burial’ was considered possible by 50%, while 48% were able to imagine being buried ‘outside a cemetery (ashes dispersed in Nature)’ and 21% ‘ashes dispersed in my own garden’. The other options also included ‘a dual burial with my partner’, which 57% regarded as ‘appropriate in principle’. The high degree of acceptance of these types of burial already revealed potential for the future, even if these alternatives were not yet particularly relevant in practice back in 2002. In 2021, the corresponding question was framed with greater clarity, and the choice was specified between a cemetery – without mentioning any particular form of burial – and ‘not in a cemetery’: “When you think about your own burial, would you like to be buried in a cemetery?” (open answer). This
Survey participants who prioritised a burial outside a cemetery were then posed an open question about what specific ideas they might have in this regard. Almost three-quarters of those unwilling to be buried in a cemetery expressed a wish for their ashes to be scattered in nature. One subgroup of ‘in nature’ left this at simply ‘somewhere outside’, ‘ashes scattered in nature’; a second subgroup (‘ashes scattered at a specific natural location’) indicated the kind of natural landscape they desired for the scattering (in the air, the mountains, a forest, a field, a river, the sea).
Finally, the ‘social connotation’ category included references to a place with personal significance (e.g. “in my homeland, my garden, at home under a tree, in the sea near Ibiza, where I was born”), a desire to do something for the public good (such as a “donation to the University of Bern for medical training”) and delegating decisions on the type of burial to one’s family (“kids will decide”; “I leave it up to my daughter”; “relatives should decide”).
Out of Cemetery Burials and Preferences for Style of Nature Burials.
Comment: *Sig <.001.
Of those survey participants who are cemetery visitors and would like to be buried in one, 54% would prefer a cemetery in the city of Bern; in this category among the non-visitors, almost a quarter are undecided and only 28% of them would specifically like to be buried in a cemetery in the city. There is no significant difference between the participants’ specific cemetery preferences, though the Schosshalde Cemetery pips the others to the top of the list with 40% among non-visitors and those who want to be buried in a cemetery.
Discussion
So are cemeteries for strolling or for mourning? That’s a false alternative! They’re for strolling and also for mourning. This is how we ought to answer the question posed by the original study, in view of the results presented here of our comparative study over the period of 19 years. The development dynamics of the past 20 years have been characterised by an increasing emphasis on the multifunctionality of cemeteries as green, urban spaces and by a greater focus on the needs of cemetery visitors.
However, we should note at the outset that certain
While individual results may be up for discussion given this background, we may nevertheless assume the existence of a valid dynamic of change because practically every individual aspect points in the same direction. They reflect an overall trend towards greater tolerance and openness, in line with the motto ‘Cemeteries belong to everyone’ (73% agreement in the overall sample of 2021).
The Individual Results
The socio-demographic profile of cemetery visitors had already changed between 2002 and 2021. There was an increasing presence of middle-aged groups (40–65) and of people who did not feel that they belonged to any specific religion or denomination (11% in 2002 as against 22% in 2021).
The increasing relevance of age and of generational and denominational affiliation is further illustrated by the differences between visitors and non-visitors in 2021. The latter group was significantly younger than the former (34% of non-visitors as against 19% for visitors belonged to the 20–29 age group) and did not belong to any of the large religious communities (19% vs. 8%). It thus seems that the cemeteries had been in a position to address this particular ‘demand potential’ to at least some extent.
We can also observe a greater sense of
In 2002, we saw a consistent dismissal of any changes in use, the more frequently people came to visit gravesites. But this reduced greatly by 2021 with regard to the respective correlation coefficients (such as lively games and picnicking), or at least gave way to a more tolerant attitude (no significant correlation in 2021) towards, say, cultural events and cycling.
When we compare 2002 and 2021, we see that a reduction in resistance to alternative uses for cemeteries has gone hand in hand with a significantly higher level of acceptance. If we focus on such increases in these dynamics of change, then we can observe the strongest rise in the approval of cultural events (from 27% to 57%), followed by ‘quiet social games’ (from 40% to 67%) and ‘grazing sheep’ (from 49% to 60%). The focus on quiet, passive changes in cemetery use in 2002 was more pronounced in 2021, when new options were also taken into account (yoga, reclining benches). At the same time, however, these trends also correspond to an increasing tolerance (albeit at a lower level) of alternative uses for cemeteries that involve greater physical and social activities, even when we take into account the slight divergences in the questions of 2002 and 2021. We can once more observe how user requirements balance out. This offers the cemetery administration greater room for manoeuvre to be more proactive in meeting the shifting needs of the public, such as promoting cultural events and quiet social games, installing recliner benches and reintroducing grazing sheep at all the cemeteries. The limited resources at their disposal mean that there are clear limits to such plans, which in turn makes it important to set priorities. However, resistance from cemetery users can no longer be used to justify the status quo.
Increasing Diversity and a Shift in Values
The trend towards alternative burials outside cemeteries, which was already a matter of firm conjecture back in 2002, would seem to have grown. When given a choice, 24% of cemetery visitors in 2021 (and 41% of non-visitors) would prefer a nature burial outside any cemetery. Back in 2002, multiple responses were offered to a less specific question about the degree of ‘appropriateness’ of different forms of burial (48% found a burial outside a cemetery appropriate, along with other possible answers). When we look at the results of 2021, their variance and diversity are striking. There is a degree of uncertainty – 17% of visitors were unable to make a decision, or had not yet made one – while those in favour of a nature burial can be divided into subgroups with specific ideas about the extent to which nature overall should play a role, the location for scattering one’s ashes, and social connections.
Finally, from the perspective of the city’s authorities for cemetery and green-space management, the question arises as to just how they have succeeded over time in adjusting their offerings to meet the shifting needs of cemetery visitors as reported here. In 2002, an overall high level of satisfaction with the cemeteries’ assorted services was registered, with only 12% calling for improvements – such as in matters of signage and planting (Kretz, 2003, p. 25). The 2021 follow-up survey shows the same percentage of responses to the related question “What was lacking on your last cemetery visit?”. The ongoing high level of overall satisfaction among 88% of visitors indicates that the cemetery management had largely recognised the shift in visitor requirements with a greater emphasis on experiencing nature and towards a greater, secular use of the cemetery for leisure purposes, and that they had borne this in mind (at least implicitly, if not systematically) when reorganising the cemeteries. These findings were given empirical support in 2021 when the
It seems plausible that the restorativeness potential has been enhanced significantly over the past two decades through assorted changes to the cemeteries. We can assign these changes, after the fact, to the five dimensions/aspects of perceived restorativeness: ◦ A new, uniform signage system introduced in 2017–2020 -> perceived restorativeness -> ‘ ◦ Promotion of biodiversity -> perceived restorativeness -> ‘ ◦ More cultural events, birdwatching - > perceived restorativeness -> ‘ ◦ New planting programmes; themed graves for urns, 2013 – 2018 - > perceived restorativeness - > ◦ Bremgarten cemetery 2017; flower shop/plans for park and restaurant zoning of an activity area at the periphery of the cemetery ('Friedhbühlanlage')-> perceived restorativeness -> ‘
With regard to this last point, Nordh et al. (2023) assume, based on their observations in Scandinavian cemeteries, that “earmarking activity zones can help avoid conflicts between the different users”.
It would seem a good idea to consider using the concept of perceived restorativeness as a systematic framework for making future changes and to use it wherever possible to monitor them, thereby making comparisons possible with other urban green spaces. In this context, one should examine whether it might be feasible, for a reasonable outlay, to conduct surveys of the needs of cemetery visitors (and non-visitors) more systematically and more regularly in future, not just every 19 years. Local online panels might be an option here.3 It might also be conceivable to set up limited experiments in a ‘pilot cemetery’ and evaluate them afterwards: such as installing a large chessboard in a cemetery, and observing how this particular innovation is received and utilised. Ultimately, it is conceivable that a ‘cemetery observatory’ might be established, to be staffed by experts from various fields, possibly also from outside the Canton of Bern, who would be able to recognise new developments in good time. Their task would involve considering cemetery strategies for the future that take into account people’s different perceptions of what a ‘public space’ can be (Grabalov & Nordh, 2022). A citizen-friendly cemetery policy with a view to people’s shifting needs would mean staying in contact with clients located both close to the cemetery and far away from it, if we are to adjust the cemetery services offered in a manner that is both systematic and evidence-based.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Special thanks go to Christoph Schärer (Directory/Amtsleiter of “Stadtgrün Bern” the Bern municipal office for urban Green spaces - Direktion für Tiefbau, Verkehr und Stadtgrün), and his team. Together with my current and former colleagues Jimmy Schmid (project coordination and administration), Josef Lukas Loretan and Walter Kretz (the principal investigator or the 2002 survey), Tobias Hitzblech provided valuable input for the conceptualisation and construction of the survey instrument and informed us concerning the changes on the cemeteries between 2002 and 2021. Dr. Andrea Umbricht from gfs-Zürich – Market and Social Research Institute – coordinated the data collection of the 2021 survey very efficiently.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the City of Bern - Park authority.
